Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 03/04/1986 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1986 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock, and Paul Redpath CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attor- ney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Planning Director Chris Enger, Director of Community Services Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 1985, JOINT MEETING WITH BOARD OF `. ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Page 409 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List Page 413 B. Tax Forfeited Lands (Resolution No. 86-36) Page 415 C. Set Date for Special City Council Meeting for Tuesday, March 11, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., High School Auditorium, to review Landfill Report D. Set Board of Review Meeting for Thursday, May 15, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. in the School Administration Boardroom • E. Parade Permit for "Project Concern" Page 417 • F. Final Plat, Eden Lake North (Resolution No. 86-37) Page 421 G. 1st Reading Ordinance No. 11-86 changing the number Page 424 of members on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals from five to seven -2- H. PARKWAY OFFICE/SERVICE CENTER, by The Brauer Group, Inc. Page 426 2nd Reading of Ordinance #40-85 and 2nd Reading of Ordinance #43-85, Rezoning from Rural to Office on 0.92 acres and Rezoning from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 2.75 acres, respectively; approval of Developer's Agreement for Parkway Office/Service Center; and adoption of Resolution #86-25 authorizing Summary of Ordinance #40-85 and Resolution #86-38 authorizing Summary of Ordinance #43-85, and Ordering Publication of Said Summaries. 3.67 acres into two lots. Location: Northeast corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Highway #169. (Ordinance #40-85 and Ordinance #43-85, Rezoning; Resolution #86-25 and Resolution #86-38 - Authorizing Summaries and Publication) I. EDEN LAKE NORTH, by Commercial Excavating, Inc. 2nd Page 440 Reading of Ordinance #2-86, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Eden Lake North; and Adoption of Resolution #86-34, Approving Summary of Ordinance #2-86 and Authorizing Publication of Said Summary. Location: Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard. (Ordinance #2-86, Rezoning; Resolution #86-34, Authorizing Summary and Publication) J. AMOCO OIL COMPANY, by Amoco Oil Company. 2nd Reading of Page 446 Ordinance #3-86, Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial for 1.4 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Amoco Oil Company; and Adoption of Resolution #86-26, Approving Summary of Ordinance #3-86 and Ordering Publicatin of Said Summary. 1.4 acres for self-serve gasoline station, convenience store, and car wash. Location: Southeast quadrant of Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. (Ordinance #3-86, Rezoning; Resolution #86-26, Authorizing Summary and Publication) IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. RED ROCK HEIGHTS 3RD ADDITION by Jerry Halmrast and Page 453 Bill Gilk. Request for Zoning District change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 6.4 acres, with shoreland variances to be reviewed by the 8oard of Appeals, and preliminary plat of 14 acres into 7 lots and 3 outlots. Location: southeast quadrant of Village Woods Drive and View Lane. (Ordinance No. 7-86 - rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Resolution No. 86-27 - preliminary plat) - continued from February 18, 1986 t -3- B. CARDARELLE III AMENDMENT by Frank R. Cardarelle. Request Page 374 for Zoning District change from Office to C-Regional- Service on one acre for existing building. Location: northwest quadrant of Regional Center Road and Eden Road. (Ordinance No. 8-86 - rezoning from Office to C-Regional- Service) - continued from February 18, 1986 C. ALPINE VILLAGE by Herlitz Construction. Request for Pages 291 rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 8.23 acres and and 456 preliminary plat of 8.23 acres into 17 lots. Location: east of Alpine Trail, south of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. (Ordinance No. 6-86 - rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5 and Resolution No. 86-23 - preliminary plat) - continued from February 4, 1986 D. DOUGLAS CORPORATION HEADQUARTERS by Opus Corporation. Page 459 Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 95+ acres of land for office headquarters, manufacturing and distribution campus. Location: Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. (Resolution #86-35 - Planned Unit Development Concept) E. FSI OFFICE BUILDING, by Meyer, Scherer, & Rockcastle, Page 497 Ltd. Request for Zoning Amendment within Office District on 1.6 acres of land. Location: North of Highway #169, east of City West\Parkway. (Ordinance #10-86, Amending Ordinance #39-83) V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 25702 - 25884 Page 502 VI. APPOINTMENTS A. Building Code Board of Appeals - two representatives; one for a 3-year term and one for a 1-year term. B. Hennepin County Block Grant Citizens Advisory 8oard - appointmebt of one representative for an indefinite term, commencing immediately. VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members -4- B. Report of City Manager 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment - Designation Page 507 of Year 2000 MUSA Line • 2. Metropolitan Council Sewer Facility Agreement Page 530 C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Unauthorized Motorized Vehicles Use of Parks Page 541 and Trails 2. Riley Lake Park Safety Conditions Page 543 X. NEW BUSINESS XI. ADJOURNMENT 4 UNAPPROVED MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1985 6 P.M., SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary D. Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock, and Paul Redpath BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND Chairman Ron Kruger, James Dickey, Hanley APPEALS MEMBERS: Anderson, Richard Lynch, and Roger Sandvick STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, Zoning Administrator Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner Steve Durham, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael I. ROLL CALL Board of Adjustments and Appeals members Dickey and Lynch were absent. II. APPROVAL DF AGENDA The Agenda was approved as published. III. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS ACTIVITY REVIEW - 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 It was noted that information regarding the activities of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals was included in the packet. IV. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. Review the Board Duties as Outlined in Applying and Interpreting City Code 1. Direction from City Council to Board in applying and interpreting City Code Ron Kruger said he believed the Board should review each item on a case-by-case basis. Peterson asked if the Board was able to operate effectively under those guidelines. Kruger said the Board is willing to look at things on that basis and is comfortable with this procedure. 2. Discuss the definition of an undue hardship as defined in Chapter 2 Bentley asked at what point would the Board run into the question of whether or not this was "spot zoning". Assistant Planner 1 Joint Meeting Minutes -2- November 5, 1985 Durham said that has not been a problem to date; the fact that there is a variance process in place helps to alleviate that. Bentley asked what constitutes a hardship. Durham reviewed what constitutes a hardship. Redpath said he believes most hardships are based on common-sense decisions. Redpath indicated that in Bloomington a staff person makes the decision regarding the variance/hardship and it goes before the City Council on the Consent Calendar. Durham reviewed the procedures in use by other Boards of Appeals in several communities in the area. Pidcock asked if blanket variances were given. Durham said there might be in the case of a height variance in a given project, but generally that is not the case. Kruger illustrated an instance where it might be done in a subdivision. Councilmember Anderson asked what happens to a person who builds a deck without a permit. City Manager Jullie said sometimes the person has had to remove the deck; and a double permit fee is charged. Redpath said he thought that in some instances the Board of Appeals should adhere to the letter of the law and allow the proponent to appeal a decision to the City Council. Bentley said is he believed there should be strict interpretation of the City Code; he did think that items should be looked at on a case-by- case basis. Bentley said he thought the Board should look at community standards rather than just whether or not the neighbors approve or disapprove of something. Krueger said the Staff • Reports would have to include more details. Anderson asked if perhaps some types of variances might be handled by City Staff; he had heard comments that the process was a long one and sometimes held up a project. Board member Anderson said he did not know how Staff would decide on a variance, particularly if the request were a unique situation; he expressed concern as to whom would make the decision as to whether or not a variance would go to the Board. Jullie noted the variance process is a statutory procedure. Pidcock said she thought the neighbors should have some say regarding a variance since they are the ones who have to live with it. Redpath said he thought Staff should look into what Code changes might be made to facilitate the process. B. Review Planned Unit Development purpose in relation to PUD variances sent to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Planning Director Enger said he believed some changes could be made in the Code regarding parking spaces and building height in the Major 1 Joint Meeting Minutes -3- November 5, 1985 Center Area. Durham said all the buildings in the City West PUD have had to go through the variance process for one reason or another. Enger said perhaps the size of a PUD could be reduced; the Code could be changed to reflect areas of need which would then eliminate the housekeeping-variance items and leave only the variances due to hardships. Councilmember Anderson asked how long it takes to go through the variance process. Enger said the process can be done coincidently with the planning review process if the need for a variance is • realized early on in the process. Bentley said he believed that more and more the developers are trying to squeeze bigger projects onto smaller parcels. He said he thought the City Council must look at what it is approving when it comes to density. He said the idea of a PUD was to allow creative things and to allow clustering and open space. Bentley said the City should not look at PUDs as a means of avoiding the variance process. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to direct Staff to look into changes in the City Code which might improve the variance process. Councilmember Anderson said he would like Staff to look into what is done in Bloomington. Bentley suggested certain basic variances could be written into a PUD by Staff. Enger said there is usually not enough information on specific sites to make the proper determinations at the outset. Sandvick said he would like to have some of the decisions made with legal counsel present at the Board of Appeals meetings. He said the City should take a look at the legality of the Board also; he said he would like to have review by the City Attorney included in the motion. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. Sandvick said he would like to see the City Attorney review changes to be made to the City Code and to have the City Attorney review the process which is now in place. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to include review by the City Attorney in the discussion of the City Code regarding the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Motion carried unanimously. C. Review increasing Board of Adjustments and Appeals membership from 5 to 7 members Krueger said the addition of two members would help to alleviate the 9. problems the Board sometimes has with members who have to miss a Joint fleeting Minutes -4- November 5, 1985 meeting or might have to abstain from voting on a matter. Sandvick and Board member Anderson concurred and noted that Board member Lynch had also spoken in favor of increasing the membership. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to amend the City Code to increase the number of members of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals from five to seven members. Motion carried unanimously. Bentley said he thought the question of undue hardship could be a two-hour discussion topic. He said he would like to have the Board come up with a more definitive response to that question; this might be done in the discussion the Board has with the City Attorney. Krueger said he did not think it was the Board of Appeals role to review the decision regarding the zoning of the tennis club property. Enger said whenever a proponent wishes to appeal a Staff decision, the proponent has the right to appeal to the Board of Appeals. Councilmember Anderson said the process of meeting with each of the Boards and Commissions has been a good one. Krueger said he has been on the Board of Appeals for ten years and this was the first time he recalled meeting with the City Council. Hanley Anderson said he likes the way in which the Board of Appeals is dealing with the hardship issue presently. He said he believed the main problems of the Board to be too few members and the PUD process. Sandvick said he felt the Council was looking for guidelines in dealing with the "undue hardship" issue. Mayor Peterson thanked the Board members for their work and for spending another evening out by coining this evening. V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION; Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST March 4, 1986 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) PLUMBING E F H Company Loren Brown Plumbing Hagman Construction, Inc. R. C. Hoffman Plumbing,Inc. Karkela Construction Company McQuire Mechanical Services, Inc. Kloster fiadsen Construction Tom Motzko Plumbing & Heating Randall Mattson Remodeling Murphy Plumbing & Heating Rosewood Construction, Inc. Nieman Plumbing & Heating, Inc. R. J. Ryan Construction, Inc. Nordic Services Quadra Construction, Inc. North St. Paul Plumbing & Heating Steiner Development, Inc. Nybo-Peterson Plumbing Project Plumbing Schlefsky Plumbing CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Sol berg Plumbing Mark Craft Builders Star Plumbing Country View Builders, Inc. Welter & Blaylock, Inc. A. W. Danielson & Sons Fruedenberg Construction Elfering Construction, Inc. HEATING & VENTILATING Terry Elfering Construction Fireplace Construction Co. Associated Heating, Inc. Wally Irwin, Inc. A. Binder & Son, Inc. Jarip Builders Cedar Valley Heating & Air Conditioning Kellett Builders, Inc. Ron Erickson Heating & Air Conditioning Klink Construction, Inc. Fair Air Mechanical Lake Ridge Builders Company General Sheet Metal . Lan-De-Con, Inc. Golden Valley Heating & Air Conditioning Patio Enclosures;Inc. Metro Air The Pemtom Company Nordic Services Ruscon Homes, Inc. Northeast Sheet Metal S & S Construction Suburban Air Conditioning Sherburne Homes Metro Brothers Heating & Air Conditioning Sunset Homes Corporation Seasonal Control Company T & E Construction Thompson Air Conditioning Co. Trumpy Homes, Inc. Whole Builders Cooperative GAS FITTER Associated Heating, Inc. WELL DRILLING A. Binder & Son, Inc. Cedar Valley Heating & Air Conditioning Bohn Well Drilling Co., Inc. Ron Erickson Heating & Air Conditioning Max Renner Well Co., Inc. Metro Brothers Heating & Air Conditioning r Don Stodola's Well Drilling Co. Nordic Services Northeast Sheet Metal Seasonal Control Company - Tom Motzko Plumbing & Heating Co. Lr CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST page two SCAVENGER REFUSE HAULER Schrader Block Co., Inc. Eden Prairie Trashtronics Waste Management - Savage Waste Technology, Inc. WATER SOFTENER Minnesota Water Treatment CIGARETTE MECHANICAL GAMES Texaco Station Gina Maria's Pizza These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. L c kik e e Pat Solie, Licensing MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: February 26, 1986 SUBJECT: Tax Forfeited Lands On December 17, 1985, the City Council passed Resolution 85-274 requesting acquisition of four parcels of tax forfeited land for public park and roadway. Two of those parties were lots within the Duck Lake Vista subdivision fronting on County Road 4. Staff recommended acquisition of the lots in order to have sufficient easement to construct a bicycle trail within that area. Last week an Eden Prairie resident indicated that he was in the process of purchasing those two lots with the intention of contructing a single family dwelling on each lot. He has provided the City with a letter agreeing to provide a free bicycle easement along the frontage of both lots, and requests the City to rescind the request for the conveyance of those lots to the City . Attached is a resolution withdrawing the application for conveyance of those tax forfeited parcels. Staff recommends approval of this resolution. RAL:md • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO 86-36 RESOLUTION WITHDRAWING THE APPLICATION FOR ACQUISITION OF TAX FORFEITED LAND FOR PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie approved Resolution No. 85-274 requesting acquisition of Parcel No. 05-116-22-43-0039, Duck Lake Vista, Lot 1, Block 1 and Parcel 08-116-22-12-0010, Duck Lake vista, Lot 2. Block 1 for bike trail right-of-way, and WHEREAS, Mr. Jeff Kakach would like to purchase those two parcels for development of single family lots, and WHEREAS, Mr. Kakach has provided the City of Eden Prairie with an agreement to provide the City with the necessary bike trail easement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie does withdraw the request for acquisition of these two parcels. ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 4th day of March, 1986. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager Carl J. Jullie C SUBJECT: Parade Permit for "Project Co ern" DATE: February 18, 1986 We typically handle parade permit requests administratively, however this request, as per Mr. Clark's attached memo indicates, may again result in a few complaints from residents. We recommend Council approval but wish the Council to be aware that there may be a few complaints. CJJ:jp Attachments • I � AAII iV T2/10/86 To: Carl Jullie, City Manager From: Lt. Clark Subject: Parade Permit for Project Concern We have had several years of experience with the Walk for Mankind and have found the group to be well Oorganized and cooperative. I would however recommend that we have the City FCouncil review this request and be made aware of the event. From a Law Enforcement perspective it is an event that we can manage. The organization does provide good support in the form of medical aid and supervision. Consequently C we are left with the traffic control issues. This past year we used 7 Reserve Officers at no cost to the City E and used 2 on-duty Officers to assist with traffic. There were some minor expenses that the City was responsible for when we provided lunch for the Reserve Off-fceTs. Aside from that there were no additional expenses. The reason I feel that the City Council should review this request is that in the past we have nad, on the M average, 3 - 5 complaints from residents regarding young people walking across lawns, ect. Most of these E complaints were easily dealt with however I suspect that some people may contact a City Council member rather than the Public Safety Department. Occ Capt. Wall 4 1 JAN 2 4 1986 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PARADE PERMIT APPLICATION City Code 6.20 requires that any organization or sponsor of any event, which is defined as a parade, apply for a permit to the City Manager at least 30 days prior to the event. NOTE: If the route requires the use of any County or State streets, the applicant must apply to the appropriate agency and show authorization prior to the issuance of any City permit. Date of Application: isniiary 99 1986 Organization: Prniart Cnnrern Minnesota Type of Event:Walk Fnr Mankind Contact Person: Rnxi Walbridge Home Phone: 933-6769 Work Phone: 835-6975 Address: 4901 W. 77th St #105B Mpls. MN 55435 Route: Collezeview N to Poplar Bridge E to 9 Mile Cr Pkwy N to Stanle Ave N to 84th St W to F Bush lk Rd to Highwood Dr W to Co Rd 18 to West 78th Street to p"is vd to Preserve Blvd to Anderson Lakes Parkway to Bloomington Ferry Rd W to Veness Rd N to W Bush Lake Rd S to Co Rd 1& 18, E. to Nesbit, N to 102nd, E to France, N to Normandale. Date of Event: May 3. 1986 Time of Event: Start 8:00 A.M. Finish 5:00 P.M. Expected Number of Participants: 2-3 thousand Expected Number of People Viewing: 100 Description of Support Services Provided by Sponsoring Organization: We provide medical assistance, adult supervision at checkpoints, and route control personnel Name of Insurance Company: Fireman's Fund Phone Number: 619-238-1828 Agent's Name: Robert F. Driver Company, Inc (Include copy of Proof of Insurance; i.e., policy or binder.) NOTE: The Public Safety Department has a limited number of volunteers to assist. The nature of your event may require the hiring of off-duty Public Safety Officers. This expense will be the responsibility of the sponsor. For Office Use Date Received: City Manager Preliminar Review: Date: Public Safety Review: //) 2 I...4✓ Datee,1,01(4# City Council Review: UU Date: Permit Issued: Date: (See Attached for Conditions) Permit Denied: Date: (See Attached for Reasons) f{()flERT F. DRIVER rovrarr r,:vrm111.1.71.,OVILVItrIli • ,A • • tv • • 0)). January 10, 1985 • Mr. Don Jenkinson Project Concern, Inc. P.O. lox 85323 San Diego, CA 92138 Re: Insurance: FIREMANS FUND POLICY NUMBER: MXX 81901834 FIREMANS rump POLICY NUMBER: XLI 1670209 FIREMANS FUND POLICY NUMBER: WP 80071400 Dear Don, This letter will serve as a Certified Statement of the Insurance program established, providing coverage for any and al'. "WALKS FOR MANKIND" during the period, 12-31-84 to 12-31-85. This additionally includes pre and post walk activities. • When a permanent date has been determined, Certificates of Insurance will be forwarded to each walk committee. In the meantime, this Certified Letter will nerve as evidence of Insurance to assist each committee in setting in their The limits of Insurance are as follows: Comprehensive General Liability $500,000 Co ,bined Single Limit, Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Premises, COmpleted Operations and Non- Owned Autoranhile coverages. Fxcess_Lial,fIire vcesof S506,000 bodily Injury and Property Damage com%ined. Statatory 7f yr,•.: shoo ml rer.i.tirr• arldi ti 1 informatien, 1,j nd y acP.,i se• SinrgrrlY, 1 / ; i!!; !"6 Sia,e of Ctlifornia C!..:_nit!,* ofan Dreg:. 4 Suhscr:l-d and SWfh LO before ,„e 15 "-my ul • I 3 Nut Feb I I,. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN CDUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-37 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF EDEN LAKE NORTH WHEREAS, the plat of Eden Lake North has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for Eden Lake North is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated February 25, 1986. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on February 25, 1986. { Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk t CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works FROM: David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician Q1(n DATE: February 25, 1986 SUBJECT: EDEN LAKE NORTH PROPOSAL: Tandem Corporation has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Eden Lake North located south of Franlo Road and west of Preserve Boulevard in the North 1/2 of Section 23. The site contains 32.5 acres to be divided into 42 single family lots and 2 outlots. Outlot A contains 10.86 acres, consisting of Lake Eden and adjacent wet lands, and is to be dedicated to the City. Outlot 8 contains 0.37 acres and will be retained by the Developer. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on January 7, 1986, per Resolution 86-11. Second reading of Ordinance 2-86, zoning the property to RI- 13.5, is scheduled for the March 4, 1986, City Council meeting. The Oeveloper's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled for execution on March 4, 1986. VARIANCES All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities and streets will be installed throughout the development in conformance with City standards. The street names "Grier Court" and "Grier Circle" must be revised prior to release of the plat. Names to be used must be approved by the Director of Public Works. Existing right-of-way for Grier Lane and drainage and utility easements over lots being replatted from Darkenwald Addition must be vacated prior to recording of this plat. A vacation hearing has tentatively been scheduled for March 25, 1986. - I Final Plat Eden Lake North -2- February 26, 1986 PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication shall be in conformance with City Code requirements. BONDING: Bonding for utilities, streets and walkways to be municipally owned shall be in conformance with City Code requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Eden Lake North subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following: 1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $1680. 2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $4096. 3. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $920. 4. Execution of the Developer's Agreement. 5. Second reading of Ordinance 2-86. 6. Revision of street names. 7. Receipt of Warranty Deed for Outlot A. 8. Vacation of right-of-way and easements. 9. Satisfaction of bonding requirements. DLO:sg cc: United Mortgage Tandem Corp. Commercial Excavating Harold Peterson, Hill Engineering • ORDINANCE NO. 11-86 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2.11, SUBD. 1, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 2.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Eden Prairie City Code Section 2.11, Subd. 1, is hereby amended to read: Subd. 1. Establishment and Composition. A Board of Adjustments and Appeals, composed of five-i5} [seven (7)] members is hereby established for the purpose of handling all appeals and adjustments (variances) under provisions of the City Code relating to land use and subdivision, and as otherwise provided by the City Code. Board members shall be appointed for staggered three-year terms[, except that such appointments may be made for less than three-year terms in order to achieve a system of staggered expira- tion of terms.] Effective Date: 3-1-86 Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 2.99 are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of 1 • 1986, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1986. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1986. -2- • Parkway Office/Service Center CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 40-85 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Office District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the Office District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of March 4, 1986, entered into between Allyn A. and Gladys B. Lindstrom, husband and wife, and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof. -Section--6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 19th day of November, 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 4th day of March, 1986. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor c PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of • EXHIBIT A Legal descriptions for proposed rezoning of Outlot G. Lake Eden (PLAT LEGAL) Proposed Lot 2 (office) That part of Outlot G lying Easterly and Southerly of a line described as follows; Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Outlot G, thence westerly, along the South line of said Outlot G, on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 27 minutes 56 seconds West, a distance of 132.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 30 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 132.00 feet; thence North a distance of 157.30 feet; thence East a distance of 138.00 feet to the East line of said Outlet G and there terminating. Parkway Office/Service Center CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 43-85 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Neighborhood Commercial District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the Neighborhood Commercial District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, , shall be, and are amended accordingly. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of March 4, 1986, entered into between Allyn A. and Gladys B. Lindstrom, husband and wife, and the City of Eden Prairie, whichAgreement_is hereby made a part hereof. Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 17th day of December, 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 4th day of March, 1986. ATTEST: John 0. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor • PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 1 EXHIBIT A Legal descriptions for proposed rezoning of Outlot G. Lake Eden (PLAT LEGAL) Proposed Lot 1 (commercial). Outlot G, except that part lying Easterly and Southerly of a line described as follows; Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Outlot G. thence westerly, along the South line of said Outlot G, on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 27 minutes 56 seconds West, a distance of 132.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 30 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 132.00 feet; thence North a distance of 157.00 feet; thence East a distance of 138.00 feet to the East line of said Outlot G and there terminating. 6 i Parkway Office/Service Center DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1986, by Allyn A. and Gladys B. Lindstrom, husband and wife, hereinafter referred to as "Developers," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developers have applied to City for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial, for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 0.92 acres and from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 2.73 acres for relocation of an 8,000 sq. ft. office building and for construction of a 13,000 sq. ft. office/commercial service structure, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #40-85 for rezoning to Office, and Ordinance #43-85 for rezoning to Neighborhood Commercial, Developers covenant and agree to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Developers shall develop the property in conformance with the materials revised and dated November 14, 1985, reviewed and approved by the City Council on November 17, 1985, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Developers shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Developers covenant and agree to the performance and observance by Developers at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developers shall submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and erosion control for the property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developers shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 4. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developers shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of: A. A revised site plan which shall include: 1) A right-turn lane in and a right-turn lane out of the site. 2) A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk connection between the property and the sidewalk to be constructed within the road right-of-way along the north side of Anderson Lakes Parkway. B. A modified landscape plan which shall include: 1) Additional coniferous plantings along the north property line. 2) Additional plantings and berming along Highway #169 and along Anderson Lakes Parkway for purposes of screening the parking areas from view. 3) Provision of a mass planting of a mixture of plant materials along the east property line for screening from the property to the east. C. Detailed signage and lighting plans. D. Detailed plans and samples of exterior building materials. E. Detailed plans of the fence, including materials to be used. F. Detailed plans of the proposed pump island canopy, including • materials to be used. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developers agree to construct or implement, or cause to be constructed or implemented, those improvements and materials listed above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning. 5. Concurrent with construction of utilities, and in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto, Developers agree to construct a five- foot wide concrete sidwalk connecting the property to a sidewalk to be constructed within the right-of-way along the north side of Anderson Lakes Parkway, between the property and Darnell Court. 6. Developers agree to notify the City and the Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of any grading, or tree removal, on the property. Prior to issuance of any permit for grading upon the property, Developers agree to implement erosion control measures and adequate protective measures for areas to be preserved and areas where grading is not to occur, and to receive City approval of said measures. Prior to approval by the City, the Developers must call for on-site inspection of the property by the City, and defects in materials and workmanship in the implementation of said measures shall then be determined by the City. Defects in materials or workmanship shall then be corrected by the Developers, reinspected and approved by the City prior to issuance of the grading permit by the City. Approval of materials and workmanship may be subject to such conditions as the City may impose at the time of acceptance. 7. Developers agree to confine grading to that area of the property within the construction limits as shown on Exhibit B. Developer shall place snow fencing at the construction limits within the wooded areas toward the north and northeast portions of the property prior to any grading upon the property. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Developers shall submit to the Director of Planning and receive the Director's approval of a tree inventory of those trees within the construction area and within 25 ft. outside of the construction area, indicating the size, type, and location of all trees twelve (12) inches in diameter, or greater, at a level 4.5 feet above ground level. If any such trees are removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the construction area, Developers agree that prior to issuance of any building permit for the property, Developers shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of a replacement plan for all trees removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the construction area. Developers further agree that said trees shall be replaced by similar tree species and that the trees used for replacement shall be no less than six inches in diameter. The amount of trees to be replaced shall be determined by the Director of Planning, using a square inch per square inch basis, according to the area of the circle created by a cross sectional cut through the diameter of a tree as measured 4.5 feet above the ground. If a tree replacement plan is required, Developers agree that, prior to issuance of any building permit, to submit a bond, or letter of credit, guaranteeing completion of all tree replacement work as approved by the Director of Planning. The amount of the bond, or letter of credit, shall be 154% of the approved estimated cost of implementation of all tree replacement work and shall be in such form and contain such other provisions and terms as may be required by the Director of Planning. Developers agree to prepare and submit for approval to the Director of Planning a written estimate of the costs of the tree replacement work to be completed. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developers shall implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning. • EXHIBIT A Legal descriptions for proposed rezoning of Outlot G. Lake Eden (PLAT LEGAL) Proposed Lot 1 (commercial) Outlot G, except that part lying Easterly and Southerly of a line described as follows; Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Outlot G, thence westerly, along the South line of said 0utlot G, on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 27 minutes 56 seconds West, a distance of 132.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 30 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 132.00 feet; thence North a distance of 157.00 feet; thence East a distance of 138.00 feet to the East line of said Outlot G and there terminating. • Proposed Lot 2 (office) That part of Outlot G lying Easterly and Southerly of a line described as follows; Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Outlot G. thence westerly, along the South line of said Outlot G, on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 27 minutes 56 seconds West, a distance of 132.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 30 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 132.00 feet; thence North a distance of 157.00 feet; thence East a distance of 138.00 feet to the East line of said Outlot G and there terminating. • • . L Parkway Office/Service Center OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN CONTRACT LODGING, INC. AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1986, by and between Allyn A. and Gladys B. Lindstrom, husband and wife, hereinafter referred to as "Owners," and the City of Eden Prairie, hereinafter referred to as "City:" For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinance #40-85 and #43-85 changing the zoning of the property owned by Owner from Rural to Office and to Neighborhood Commercial, as more fully described in that certain Developer's • Agreement entered into as of , 1986, by and between Contract Lodging, Inc., and City, Owners agree with the City as follows: 1. If Contract Lodging, Inc., fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural. 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owners, their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property. — T 3. If the Owners transfer such property, owners shall obtain an agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement. ALLYN A. LINDSTROM GLADYS 8. LINDSTROM • L : . Parkway Office/Service Center CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-25 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 40-85 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATIDN OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 4D-85 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 4th day of March, 1986; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 40-85, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 40-85 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on March 4, 1986. Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John 0. Frane, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 40-85 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located north of Anderson Lakes Parkway and east of Highway #169, known as Parkway Office/Service Center, from the Rural District to the Office District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/John 0. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the r day of , 1986. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) Parkway Office/Service Center CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-38 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 43-85 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 43-85 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 4th day of March, 1986; • NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 43-85, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. 8. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 43-85 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph 6 herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on March 4, 1986. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John 0. Frane, City Clerk (. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 43-85 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located north of Anderson Lakes Parkway and east of Highway #169, known as Parkway Office/Service Center, from the Rural District to the Neighborhood Commercial District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _day of , 1986. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) Eden Lake North CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA OROINANCE NO. 2-86 AN OROINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the R1-13.5 District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the R1-13.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of March 4, 1986, entered into between United Mortgage Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof. Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 7th day of January, 1986, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 4th day of March, 1986. ATTEST: • John 0. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of EXHIBIT A ZONING LEGAL The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 116, North Range 22, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, except the North 683.25 feet of the fast 1005.45 feet thereof. Together with a 33 foot easement over and across a part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter for access from the above described tract or parcel of land to the Town Road commonly known as Franlo Road over and across the North 33 feet of the tract of land of the parties of the first part adjoining the above described tract of land hereby conveyed on the East thereof running from the West boundary of said adjoining tract of land of the parties of the first part to the juncture of the said 33 foot easement with the said Town Road commonly known as Franlo Road. PLATTING LEGAL Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, Black 1, DARKENWALD FIRST ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota; together with vacated Grier Lane as dedicated on said DARKENWALD FIRST ADDITION. The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 116, North Range 22, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, except the North 683.25 feet of the East 1005.45 feet thereof. Together with a 33 foot easement over and across a part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter for access from the above described tract or parcel of land to the Town Road commonly known as Franlo Road over and across the North 33 feet of the tract of land of the parties of the first part adjoining the above described tract of land hereby conveyed on the East thereof running from the West boundary of said adjoining tract of land of the parties of the first part to the juncture of the said 33 foot easement with the said Town Road commonly known as Franlo Road. • Eden Lake North DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1986, by United Mortgage Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 32.5 acres into 42 single family lots and two outlots, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #2-86, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the materials revised and dated January 9, 1986, reviewed and approved by the City Council on January 7, 1986, and attached hereto as Exhibit 8, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Concurrent with submittal of the final plat to the City, Developer agrees to provide for dedication to the City of Outlot A , as depicted on Exhibit B, attached hereto, for drainage, utility easement, and park purposes. 4. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and erosion control for the property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 5. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property. 6. Concurrent with construction of utilities and streets, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed a five-foot wide, five-inch thick concrete sidewalk along the south and west sides of Grier Lane. Said sidewalk shall be constructed in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. i Ui Eden Lake North CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-34 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 2-86 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2-86 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 4th day of March, 1986; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 2-86, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 2-86 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on March 4, 1986. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: • John D. Frane, City Clerk { CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 2-86 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located south of Franlo Road and west of Preserve Boulevard, known as Eden Lake North, from the Rural District to the R1-13.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _ day of 1986. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) • Amoco Oil Company CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 3-86 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESDTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Neighborhood Commercial District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the Neighborhood Commercial District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. ( Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of March 4, 1986, entered into between Amoco Oil Company, a Maryland corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, and that certain Owners' Supplement to Developer's Agreement dated as of March 4, 1986, entered into between 169/Anderson Lakes Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement and Owners' Supplement are hereby made a part hereof. Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 7th day of January, 1986, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 4th day of March, 1986. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary O. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of I EXHIBIT A 1 ZONING DESCRIPTION All that part of Outlot A, Anderson Lakes Commercial Center which lies northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Outlot A; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 08 minutes 34 seconds East along the Westerly line of said Outlot A a distance of 145 feet to the beginning of the line to be described; thence South 70 degrees 51, minutes 56 seconds East to the East line of said Outlot A and there terminating. PLATTING DESCRIPTION Outlot A, Anderson Lakes Commercial Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota 1 1 1 1' 1 f r • • DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1986, by and between Amoco Oil Company, a Maryland corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, hereinafter referred to as "City;" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City previously approved agreements for development of the land, a portion of said land being that as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and hereinafter referred to as "the property," and said previous • agreements being as described below: A November 4, 1980, agreement entitled Anderson Lakes Parkway Neighborhood Shopping Center PUD, for 17 acres of land, approving a Planned Unit Development Concept for the property, said agreement made and entered into between Eden Prairie Real Estate Investment Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, and City; A June 5, 1984, PUD Developer's Agreement entitled National Child Care, for said 17 acres of land, amending the Planned Unit Development Concept approved by the November 4, 1980, agreement, said agreement made and entered into between Eden Prairie Real Estate Investment Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, and City; and; WHEREAS, the provisions of said agreements are binding upon and enforceable against owners, their successors, and their assigns of the property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and, WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend said agreements; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: I. 1. Developer shall plat and develop the property in conformance with the material revised and dated December 30, 1985, reviewed and approved by the City Council on January 7, 1986, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, and made a part hereof, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Developer shall develop the property in accordance with that certain developer's agreement dated November 4, 1980 and that certain PUD developer's agreement dated June 5, 1984, both entered into by and between Eden Prairie Real Estate Investment Corporation and the City, except to the extent that said agreements are inconsistent with this Agreement. Said agreements are incorporated herein by reference. 4. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property, Developer agrees to submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's approval of detailed storm water run-off, erosion control, and utility plans. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements indicated in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 5. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the property, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of: A. A revised site plan which shall include an on-site catch basin and storm sewer system, including the proposed connection with an existing storm sewer within Aztec Drive. Said revised site plan shall also reflect current City Code requirements regarding one-way driveway design. 8. A revised landscape plan which shall include additional mass plantings of evergreen trees along the south property line and in the northeast corner of the site to help screen views from U. S. Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. C. Detailed plans indicating the sight lines from U. S. Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway for review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed berming and landscaping. D. A revised grading plan which shall reflect a minimum six- foot berm height along Anderson Lakes Parkway. E. Detailed samples of the exterior building materials and colors of said materials. F. Detailed signage plans. G. Detailed lighting plans, including alternatives for reduction of off-site glare from the canopy. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to implement, or cause to be implemented, those plans, improvements, and materials, as listed above, as approved by the Director of Planning. Amoco Oil Company OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN AMOCO OIL COMPANY AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1986, by and between 169/Anderson Lakes Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owners," and the City of Eden Prairie, hereinafter referred to as "City:" For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinance #3-86 changing the zoning of the property owned by Owner from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of , 1986, by and between Amoco Oil Company, and City, Owners agree with the City as follows: 1. If Amoco Oil Company fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural. —2. -This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owners, their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property. 3. If the Owners transfer such property, owners shall obtain an agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement. 169/ANDERSON LAKES CORPORATION By Its Ii Amoco Oil Company CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-26 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 3-86 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 3-86 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 4th day of March, 1986; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 3-86, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 3-86 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph 8 herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on March 4, 1986. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk i li CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 3-86 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located south of Anderson Lakes Parkway and east of Highway #169, known as Amoco Oil Company, from the Rural District to the Neighborhood Commercial District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: • /s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _day of , 1986. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) • • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: February 27, 1986 SUBJECT: Red Rock Heights 3rd Addition Supplementary Staff Report to the January 24, 1986 Planning Staff Report Red Rock Heights 3rd Addition is a request for zoning district change from Rural to R-1 13.5 on 6.4 acres. The major park, recreation and natural resources concern regarding this proposal relates to the pedestrian system. An existing trail easement for a future 8' wide asphalt trail exists along the Red Rock Lake shoreline, east of Red Rock Heights 3rd Addition and extends to Red Rock Neighborhood Park. This trail and scenic easement are located at the bottom of a relatively steep wooded hill and provide all of the residents within the neighborhood access to a very scenic trail system along the lake shoreline and along the edge of the marsh east of the lake. Attached to this memo is a plan depicting the existing and proposed trail system. The map shows the 5' wide concrete sidewalk along Village Woods Drive and the proposed 8' asphalt trail along the shoreline with five proposed access points to the sidewalk on Village Wood Drive. The western most access from the 8' trail to the 5' concrete sidewalk along Village Woods Drive extends through Red Rock Heights 3rd Addition. The problem with the proposed trail relates to the topography within the 3rd addition. The developer has proposed a trail connection between the eastern most house and the eastern boundary of the third addition, then continuing north along the cul-de-sac street connecting to Village Woods Drive. The original proposal depicted an 8' asphalt trail with a 13-15% grade over a 50D' length -of-traillFdtng with a 90 degree turn at the bottom of the hill. This design is not safe, and would not be approved by City staff. The City attempts to keep all bicycle trails and sidewalks less than a 7% grade and when the trail exceeds a 7% grade it should only be for a minimal distance, and should not have any turns at the bottom of the grade. There are several alternatives to the trail proposed by the developer: 1. Terminate the trail at the eastern boundary of Red Rock Heights 3rd Addition. Although, the developer would approve this alternative, City staff oppose this alternative in that it would create approximately a 600' deadend trail along Red Rock Lake. 2. Extend the 8' asphalt trail along the shoreline across the two eastern lots of Red Rock Heights 3rd Addition, and then north, between the second and third house from the east, to connect the trail to the cul-de-sac. This option will allow continuation of the 8' asphalt trail and would make a connection to a street at an acceptable grade. Although, this option is acceptable to City staff, it is unacceptable to the property owner in that the lots in Red Rock Heights 3rd Addition are not similar in character to the lots further to the east as the topography in this area is less steep and is not wooded between the location of the house and the lakeshore. The public trail would be clearly visible between the home and the lakeshore, and would considerbly reduce the value of the two lots and would impact the third lot. 3. Begin lowering the trail on the north end and raising the trail on the south end through retaining walls, fill, etc. in order to reduce the grade and leave the trail in the location along the eastern border. Neither the developer nor the staff find this solution acceptable due to the serious impact the grading would have on the oak trees at the top of the hill. 4. End the 8' wide asphalt trail in a turn around for maintenance vehicles at the eastern property line of Red Rock Heights 3rd Addition, and create a pedestrian access to the north through a 5' wide concrete sidewalk and series of steps north along the property line in the same location proposed by the developer. The 5' concrete sidewalk would extend out to Village Woods Drive along the developer's cul-de-sac street. This proposal would satisfy the developer. It provides for easy maintenance of the 8' asphalt trail adjacent to the lake; however, it cuts off the bicycle access at this point. It is also very unlikely that the 5' wide concrete section of the trail would be maintained free of snow in the winter months, as the stairway would require hand shoveling. The Planning Commission recommended a rejection of the concrete stairway, as it eliminated that section of trail use by bicyclists. They were also concerned with the increased maintenance costs of a stairway. The Community Services staff recommend the stairway alternative because the only other acceptable alternative is to extend the 8' trail across the easterly two lots, or to terminate the trail at the eastern boundary of Red Rock Heights 3rd Addition. Staff believes the public trail across those two lots and between the two homes would cause an ongoing problem for both City staff and property owners in the future, and staff believes the stairway alternative it is preferable to terminating the trail. 81:md • 1 , 7 4 *X‘S Al 44, &J;tiN .. .. ,, 4-' - , \ , . AL Aii...: 111 . - ..,... .:,, .,..„ ... sol ' ' _- - , • / / 1 ‘ 0101.4 • 1 ', t----i--.--; . . loii%):4, , X ill 14.. 4, N, . . 4on•ref 4 t ..orill11411r Arillik. MI ,,_. 2.1,,. 1.1...,t, la ibt.ak, * .wi. ..,-. .. ,0,11 . sp erre! , ... - . gge' '-:..... S.Cone,- row 9 ____-. ' . Ft, ***a iii4L ..S. . , . 1.''' IIIIIIII COACHMAN •N. :c.' . • Alati End a aspkokt Me. • ,,,,,..LiAuseoR T. 8.up,, A,...., T E A UN 1 .,C , , eallerift is, i . ' "C''.. .*12 (40. 4. * % i ' • -2 , , 3 _11U2\''''t • 0 • - :-'. bVP'. 'A . , . _,,,' 1. . / 7 1 gocx \ .... 1 ) \ . .. 1 • ' ...-.-. 7-TagI er DR 1 ' ' I , ... 1 -- )1 ‘ -.: ..•••••• ,.... .. % ..! . ,.... ,. ,...E.r '.,i: ,......... •0, , ----'1--... I '' •. i J 1 • .„,•• /. 1 / t OkRAL i . ,e• , I i ( I 1 1s , ---- i ' 1 t. f, +ft - • i A r----•-•-'71r7T --.--' • - " , '•- i I?---* it''. ..,.". -.---• - - i• i s s . ---•-- "t/..S r •.'"Z...-t . • UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Feb. 3, 1966 C. Alpine Village • Refer to staff report dated January 10, 1986 and memo dated // January 31, 1986 from Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services. Lambert introduced Charles Hettinger representing the Herlitz - Construction Company. Hettinger said they are requesting a modified grading plan. This would mean that the two mounds located on the site will not have to be removed and only less desirable trees such as ash, dead oaks, etc. will be removed. ( UNAPPROVED MINUTES . \ EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Feb. 3, 1986 -4- Kingrey asked if there is a more updated grading plan available. Hettinger said there was not enough time to prepare a new grading plan, but it would be submitted to the Council tomorrow night if the Commission approved it tonight. Cook said he did not feel secure approving a grading plan and tree inventory which he has not seen. Lambert said the Planning Staff has approved the plan with the contingency that the grading plan will be changed. MOTION: A motion was made by Cook to recommend approval of the request per staff report with the following conditions: that no action is taken until the new grading plan is reviewed and a new tree inventory on trees to be saved is taken. Gonyea seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. • • • 5�✓—r .r j i ! BIRO ISLAND., r ,,, •. ---- •< A . ` i. {, ' e. �•••• L, .,,.--_. , _TaLT1 TmT,,T ` . • d! R . ' • f.i'4 A N Q ;. '7 � .- r :A , � . t. „....,,,,,PQ.....•• '\ �' �ncAnncu r ( �I •..1 � �1� C A X( . �" .-- -: \ -----' L</ YC • I 11 Wit{ •j \1 ••r.•a•y edal. y 7 "*aat°Y, • 1 t 4,4J`v ^-v • j. sY 4 V A ,,r-,n r •r /. • I — / p�oPosed 4 / rr cH tia \ H \ o. 'kc :� I,.?, '` �' ,- _ �� Ar y it ' ,� Y .i . �[ '44 g. :'''' '' •y.-r 7 ,,tf( 1 '., z F .,4 CE�IVAL! ,, r, ! n '-''i'wF ,-ae-.4,r•.,s A,:, r....J.c ,h'•. {•rex t'y"'yt. ..i�.;:: PARK �� i1p,,1 . + R n y cJ rs•1`.t- .7.;-4,.,lr ir '' 1, rr,y kS Ye , PARK ` (. ''4 0.. ' ".iii t.W . r"t -N,,,, ,•„►v y�b ry io-'A t v" ' •/ '� 7 ,� iiXNKK 4 .°ram-;: .,7r-1 a x r 'fie E •'•• t•• ` \-_ 'fib' ', "Z`'E .`fi.yln b '1'�,sc 8 v.+' ' ,;y,.r` \1 t3. •[u•ur[ y, ^ }1__.i iI� �ttthh 1 ' 1. * Klr 1 ,l•• , I•+.lrtr•.•ai.lr•... ..4 .• . / �. y t• runt\ ' ; y .. . ,' .1 3 ' a MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission and City Council FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: December 6, 1985 SUBJECT: Substantiation for Land Use Change--Douglas Corporation LOCATION: South and west of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Highway #169, north of Hennepin County Vocational/Technical School Background At the November 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners requested additional information about the larger picture within which the request of Douglas Corporation for a Planned Unit Development Concept fits. Specific concerns were raised regarding traffic, property value, land use balance, housing variety, Comprehensive Guide Plan Goals, and impact upon future land uses. The current Comprehensive Guide Plan designations for the site are for mixed residential densities and High Density Residential and/or Office land uses. When the 1980 Guide Plan was adopted, there were approximately 350 acres of land designated for High Density Residential in the entire City. Of that 350 acres, approximately 100 acres is currently developed as High Density Residential. Since 1980, an additional 100 acres have been changed from High Density Residential to other land uses. Approximately 75 acres are pending construction at this time. Counting the land remaining on the Northrup King farm, there are approximately 75 acres of land left out of the entire community for High Density Residential land use. If the City retains the current High Density Residential designation on the Northrup King the City e total willbe1%loft amount of e hetotalCitype and area. High Residential in of the total land area of the City which would be single family detached homes and approximately 12% of the community which would be commercial, industrial, or office uses. Clearly the City is in no danger of changing the character of the community from that of a single family residential community to a high density residential community. Moreover, this year the City has reviewed the majority of all the potential high density areas in Eden Prairie. Therefore, this year is not indicative of a trend, but rather the end of a trend. It is expected that, over the course of the remaining development of the community, with Eden Prairie having such a strong employment base, there will continue to be a high multiple family housing demand. Even though the City's plan may not provide an adequate amount of area to respond to the demand, the requests, nonetheless, are expected. Responding to multiple family requests without appropriate Guide Plan locations will be very difficult for developers, affected neighborhoods, the Commissions, and City Council in the future. Remaining appropriate multiple family areas are very sparse in Eden Prairie and could be viewed as a diminishing resource. Eden Prairie's full complement of land available in each land use category has allowed it to even out the individual land use cycles. As land in a particular category is eliminated, the flexibility will end. The Northrup King farm is one of the best places for multiple development in the community. It is not near single family residential, it has been already planned for and designated on the Guide Plan, it is near and very accessible to the Vocational-Technical school, major recreation areas, and the Major Center Area commercial services. These conditions do not exist on other sites in Eden Prairie. Traffic Eden Prairie currently has a resident population of approximately 25,000, with an employment population of approximately 22,000. Surveys indicate that the majority of the jobs do not match the housing stock in Eden Prairie. The vast majority of the people that live in Eden Prairie work in some other community, and the vast majority of people that work in Eden Prairie live in some other community. The surrounding communities of Minnetonka, Bloomington, and Edina have the same situation in that they are net importers of employees. Therefore, employees for these areas have to come from South Minneapolis-Richfield areas and from areas further west of Eden Prairie. It is becoming an increasingly difficult problem for new employers in Eden Prairie to locate service industry people. The extent to which Eden Prairie allows additional industry that relies on large numbers of low-skilled or non-skilled workers and does not provide additional housing to balance this need, increases the net work-day traffic into and out of Eden Prairie. Eden Prairie's number one problem in the future will be traffic and transportation. Eden Prairie has control over local collector roads which can be built to move people within the community to jobs, goods, and services. However, it is a well- known fact that. Eden Prairie has very little control over, and has had very poor success in obtaining, major highway improvements of I-494, Highway #5, and Highway #169, which provide the network for people to move out of Eden Prairie to jobs in other areas and to move into Eden Prairie from population centers in other areas. However, Eden Prairie continues to have control over land use in the community. Eden Prairie can strongly influence how much of each type of land use is located in the community and where it is located in the community. To the extent that this control can be utilized to help solve the number one future problem, it should be. The quality of life in a community is affected by many things, not the least of which is whether you can drive in the community at rush hour. If the balance of the Northrup King farm is developed as shown on the current Comprehensive Guide Plan, it will provide a mixture of housing which would help provide a place to live for people that currently work in the community. It is unlikely that the large demand for multiple housing currently being evidenced in Eden Prairie is the result of people's desire to rent in Eden Prairie, but work in other communities. More likely it is the result of the fact that the employees that currently have to drive into Eden Prairie from moderately long distances would find it appealing to live closer to their place of work. To the extent that mixed multiple family housing, some of a rental nature, can be provided in Eden Prairie, it will help reduce the amount of incoming work-related traffic currently apparent ( in Eden Prairie. ( If this housing is not provided, but rather more manufacturing jobs are provided, { not only will the current traffic problem not be made better, but it will be further exacerbated by more unplanned manufacturing, not balanced by adequate housing. We have made calculations and feel that the difference in impact upon the highway system in Eden Prairie of providing housing on this site, versus a manufacturing plant on this site, is between 5,000-7,000 average daily trips on our highway network. Certainly this is a factor which is worthy of consideration. Taxes Taxes seem to be at the center of many land use decisions, although the Planning Commission very rarely uses that as rationale for a land use change. However, while comparing multiple family and industrial, the subject of taxes has been raised. The assessed valuation for a combination of single family and multiple family residential on the south portion of the Northrup King farm would be approximately $18,000,000 assessed valuation. By the City Assessing Department's calculations, the Douglas Corporation 320,000 sq. ft. of initial industrial and future 20-acre development of 260,000 sq. ft. would have a total assessed value of $8,500,000, less fiscal disparities, giving a net of approximately $6,000,000. Land Use The future land use anticipated to the east of the Douglas Corporation project along Highway #169 is planned as Office. The introduction of a manufacturing plant adjacent and immediately west of this future Office area would lend strong impetus to change the Office designation to office/warehouse in the very near future. Not only does there continue to be a strong demand for office/warehouse use, but the argument against office/warehouse uses as an incompatible land use adjacent to a manufacturing plant would be less effective than next to residential. There is a high probability that the entire active area of the Northrup King farm south of Anderson Lakes Parkway could be a potential industrial park. This, of course, has a radical effect on the image of the community, which was originally anticipating a residential character along Anderson Lakes Parkway. The area proposed for park is not needed as active park space and all the costs of obtaining this property have not, at this time, been determined. For example, is this property being conveyed free and clear of any assessments? Is it being requested for offset of Cash Park Fees? In addition, the amount of land on the west side of the proposal shown as privately held Open Space is not needed for the City park system, does not add to the park system, and is only needed because of the compatibility of the land use being proposed. The concept of a balanced community is a strong principle upon which many land use decisions and designations have been based for the Comprehensive Guide Plan. When specific sites of the Comprehensive Guide Plan are changed without substantiation and at counter-purposes to these major goals, the principles upon which the entire Comprehensive Guide Plan is based are, in fact, being changed upon a site-specific basis. This is inappropriate and sets a dangerous precedent for any continuity of city planning decisions in the future. The burden of proof for land uses incompatible with the Comprehensive Guide Plan rests with the proponent, not the City's defense of its Comprehensive Guide Plan to the proponent. r Summary The role of the City in carrying out the Comprehensive Guide Plan is to look at the big picture and implement it on a site-specific basis. Individual sites and requests for change in the land use on those sites are reviewed against adopted policies contained in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. It is appropriate to respond to individual requests for land use changes that respond to the overall goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. It is, however, inappropriate to change the underlying principles of the Comprehensive Guide Plan based upon a site-specific request. In doing this, the City destroys its framework of continuity for making other land use decisions. As years go by, people on City Councils and Commissions and Staff people change. The development market changes. Developers change. The purpose of the Comprehensive Guide Plan is to provide an overall framework of principles that can be utilized to guide the City through these changes and provide continuity between administrations. If the City is to be successful in city planning, rather than just site planning, consistent principles need to be applied to review of individual requests. A request for a land use other than that shown on the Comprehensive Guide Plan on a specific site which furthers goals and principles of the Comprehensive Guide Plan and can be substantiated in that way, could be approved. An individual request contrary to the goals and principles of the Comprehensive Guide Plan which does not further them, should be denied. If the City feels that there are individual goals or objectives of the Comprehensive Guide Plan which should be changed, they should be changed for conditions that exist throughout the City, not based upon an individual request. This will protect the City from constanty reacting to individual proposes with little foundation for decision, rather than planning their own community. • 7 DODOUGLAS CORPORATION TRIM SINCE 966D DECORATIVE 620 12TH AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS,MN.55.15 • PHONE(612)333-6911 • TWX 010.576-3165 January 9, 1986 Mr. Chris Enger Director of Planning City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: Douglas Corporation Headquarters Proposal Dear Chris: We have attempted to revaluate our proposal which was continued for further con- sideration by the Planning Commission on January 13 to determine if there is anything "new" that can be added to address the design and planning issues and concerns raised in your December 6 staff report. After weeks of thoughtful review and consideration, we have come to the conclusion that the concept proposal as submitted represents a special and unique industrial headquarters complex which, if given an opportunity to be implemented, will greatly benefit the City of Eden Prairie in terms of technology, aesthetics, jobs, and tax base. Therefore, we will not he presenting any new plans to the Planning Commission on January 13 to make that which we feel is already "very" special "more" special. However, we do feel that we should clarify our position in terms of the stipu- lations contained in your December 6 staff report as conditions of approval "if the Planning Commission felt that this type of land use would be appropriate on (the) site". 1) Parking Setbacks - Douglas Corporation has no objection to a 75 foot minimum setback area for parking along the streets as proposed in our concept plan. 2) Extension of Space Between Buildings - Douglas Corporation feels that the space between buildings should remain as shown on the proposed concept. plan. We feel that the proportions of the proposed building are consistent with our business thoughts on the effective internal management of people, communications, and services that will take place within the concourse which connects the various business units with each other. Also, the generous open space area surrounding the completed facility will help reduce the external mass and scale of the complex even turther. 3) Scenic Easements - Douglas Corporation proposes to use scenic easements for that portion of the site overlooking Purgatory Creek only. Open space on the balance of the site will be conserved through a combina- tion of private covenants, PAD zoning and site plan restrictions im- posed through approval of the PAD zoning. mwuors 8•K PRODUCTS•DOUOLAS-STEMAC•PRINTEC • 7(IA • f C Mr. Chris Enger January 9, 1986 Page Two • 4) Loading Facilities - All loading dock areas will be completely enclosed. 5) Berming - The industrial buildings will be one story, eighteen foot high structures. The office buildings will be two stories in height. Where appropriate, berming and landscapiang will be installed to mask or conceal the buildings from residential areas that surround it. Also, as stated previously, we will be berming parking areas to screen them from the office and Vo-Tech school areas on the east and south respectively. 6) Landscape Plan - The final approved landscape plan will comply with the minimum caliper inch standards of the City Landscape Ordinance. 7) Timing of Landscape Buffers - Douglas Corporation will prepare a schedule for installation of landscaping and special earth form features (such as berms) which, if approved by the City, will be followed in implementing the various phases of the development. 8) Research Road - All proposed roads will be dedicated as a part of the final platting for the property. 9) Trails and Sidewalks - Douglas Corporation has no objection to the construction of the bituminous or sidewalk referred to in this stipula- tion. We will also design sidewalk connections between the various buildings and the trail and sidewalk system installed to service the site. 10) Mechanical Units - The objective is to ground mount all major mechani- cal equipment. Where this is not feasible, all incidental roof top mechanical equipment will be architecturally integrated (no picket fencing) with the design of the building. 11) Open Space - Douglas Corporation has no objection to sharing all open space areas proposed in the concept plan as open space in the City Comprehensive Plan. The only exception will be the areas between the Vo-Tech school and the (as we now see it) final phase of the complex. We need the flexibility of being able to use that space for future expansion if needs dictate. }lowever. we commit to the position that no efforts will be made to expand into that area before the year 2000. 12) First Phase Zoning - Douglas Corporation has no objecticn to requesting the zoning and comprehensive guide plan change needed to implement the various phases of the project as a part of the first phase of the development.. 13) Study Model - Douglas Corporation will commission the preparation of a model before preliminary site and building plans are approved for the first phase of the development. (' Mr. Chris Enger January 9, 1986 Page Three { 14) Building Appearance — The objective is to create an architectural appearance that will be visually pleasing and efficient in design. The buildings will not have an industrial appearance. They will be office like in terms of appearance. 15) Lighting A lighting plan will be designed and developed which will be beneficial to the area. Lighting standards will be designed to keep the site safe and not create any glare within the neighborhood. Douglas Corporation commits to implementing the concept plan as shown if it is approved by the City. Before construction, several details will need to be resolved and this will occur as the plans are taken from the current stage to construction drawings. We are willing and committed to working with the City of Eden Prairie to develop a functional and attractive corporate headquarters of which Douglas Corporation and the City of Eden Prairie are proud. We ask the Planning Commission to approve this concept plan so we collectively can proceed to development. Sincerely yours, Arlyn Crussing Director of Planning & Development • it ( t } STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: December 6, 1985 SUBJECT: Douglas Corporation Planned Unit Development Concept LOCATION: Southwest quadrant of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Highway #169 APPLICANT: Opus Corporation FEE OWNER: Douglas Skanse REQUEST: Planned Unit Development District Review on 6B.6 acres. Background f�: t°G!'�(, This is a continued item from the '.'#s i "C; November 25, 1985, Planning Com- '� Y .% "{�`_, �,�y;A � mission meeting. At that meeting, a r , ��Y`c * t , s ' number of site planning and land use ',� tt issues were discussed including ` Guide Plan balance, transition, :t affect on adjacent land uses, visual ',,--, -'°"� impacts, industrial character, and �1 traffic. Y, /�I to PROPOSED SITE t° The Planning Commission felt that ♦ % /�. the project had merit on this piece fa l ' of property, but needed more time to o evaluate the proposal because of its �� �j�� Mk r. size and complexity. The Commission ,,,. �j�o�1,` - --- also requested that Staff prepare ,,y: . ,�. *���Nr•4p,jkj /� alternatives such that in the event 1=i'i1�4_1..�0 Commission felt that the use of the `, ? ( --r� �$ property was appropriate, then ,•.�.�.�♦�,��.�.�v. • approval could be based upon a list t of specific recommendations relating �i Q����.A��`r.... .4 .- 7, to site planning, architecture, and /',�.��0S* iP41+�* , J_ landscaping. X r�AAi,+ +.010. I 47I- The previous Staff Report focused ri .. i..0., ��5`�5�i ! 4 • primarily upon land use issues and ' '-'.. "' • ����A�A.+4; land use impacts fora project of 'r� sILvA7i�1..g� ,' . this type in this location. Toss .irtt V • � (, summarize the previous Staff Report, 1► AREA R EJ� LOCATION MAP c Douglas Corporation PUD 2 December 6, 1985 Staff felt that the use of the property for industrial 'land uses, not just the Douglas Corporation, was inappropriate because of the effect on the Guide Plan balance, incompatibility with surrounding land uses, and the visual impacts of a large massive industrial facility on surrounding adjacent residential properties. Staff also felt that the project had a definite industrial character and would be more appropriate in other areas of the community already guided for Industrial development. Planned Unit Development Concept Plan The Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan involves the development of approximately 28 net acres of 'land at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.24. If the balance of the land area proposed for park dedication, open space, and potential long-term future development is added, the gross acreage would be approximately 68 acres, and the FAR would be 0.11. A 0.11 FAR is a low intensity development, and to insure that development would be limited to a project of this size, the proposed open space areas should be set aside in a scenic easement to the City which would allow the City the ability to construct bike trails, and at the same time, allow the development to have control over the maintenance of the area. The area proposed for scenic easement should also be designated as open space on the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Setbacks to parking areas are based upon I-2 Zoning standards. Considering the size of the project, at the very least, the property should be proposed for I-5 Zoning with a minimum setback of 75 feet to parking. Since there is a significant amount of open space on-site, setbacks to parking should be pushed to the maximum with substantial berming proposed in front. Architecture To help downplay the industrial appearance of the project, mechanical units should be located on the ground and appropriately screened or contained inside of the building. This would help reduce the likelihood of mechanical units "growing" on the building after building construction. This would provide a cleaner appearance of the project from off-site. The building is proposed to be constructed primarily of facebrick and glass. As noted in the previous Staff Report, Staff did not feel that the use of brick on the building negated the industrial appearance of the project. By lowering the building on-site, behind large berms and landscaping, the industrial portion of the project could be downplayed, while at the same time, highlighting the two-story office portion which would be most visible from Anderson Lakes Parkway. There are two ways in which building mass can be reduced. One would be to provide for substantial berming and plantings around the site perimeter comparable in scale to the berms created on the Tipton site, which vary between 15 to 30 feet in height. Another approach would be to provide more open space between the buildings. Considering the physical size of the project, it would be appropriate to have the proponents prepare a study model for the next stage in development. This would be extremely helpful in evaluating the sight lines and the effectiveness of berming and landscaping to downplay the physical size of the project, downplay the industrial character of the project, and emphasize the office portion. The Commission will note that the study model prepared for the Tipton apartments, was very helpful in evaluating the visual impacts of the project. ( t Douglas Corporation PUD 3 December 6, 1985 Landscaping, For a project of this size, totalling 320,000 square feet, the caliper inch requirement would be 2,00D inches. Considering the physical size of the project, it would be appropriate as a condition of approval of Phase I, to begin construction of the berming and plantings such that when the future phases are completed, the trees would have had the opportunity for several years of growth. The size of the trees in the project should also be comparable in scale to the size of the building. As a comparable example, the Tipton project had a large percentage of trees between four and six-inch caliper for shade trees and 18 to 25 feet in height for coniferous trees. Roads Previous traffic studies indicated a need for north/south collector roads between Anderson Lakes Parkway and the Vo-Tech entrance such that traffic volumes could be distributed proportionately. As a condition of approval for the project, it should be required that the proponents dedicate a 70-foot right-of-way for road purposes. Since this roadway would be a collector street, there should be an eight-foot wide bituminous trail along one side, and a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk on the other side to be consistent with City policy. In addition, there should be five-foot wide concrete sidewalk pedestrian connections between the building parking areas and sidewalks within City right-of-way. Future Development The project as proposed is divided into three phases. With a zoning change in Phase I to an Industrial classification, there should also be a request and substantiation from the proponents for a Guide Plan Change from Office and High Density Residential to Industrial. A change to Industrial land uses on the property may precipitate requests for Industrial uses along Highway #169; therefore, it is extremely important that the project have a good visual transition and a definite office appearance along the north/south collector road, such that the Office intent of the Guide Plan would remain intact. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff believes that the land use impacts are the overriding determinants for denying the request for industrial land uses on the property which would include the affect on the Guide Plan balance, inappropriateness in relation to surrounding land uses, and significant off-site visual impacts. If, on the other hand, the Planning Commission felt that this type of land use would be appropriate on-site, then Staff would recommend that approval be based on the following conditions: i. Setbacks to parking areas would be at a minimum in the I-5 Zoning District, or 75 feet. 2. Buildings should be moved farther apart to provide more open space and to help downplay the physical mass of the project. ( 3. Dedicate scenic easements in ail areas proposed for open space to the City. 4. Loading facilities would be completely enclosed with a roof. c Douglas Corporation PUD 4 December 6, 1985 5. To downplay the height of the structure, extensive large berming comparable in scale to the Tipton berms be constructed around the buildings perimeter. 6. Provide a landscape plan with a minimum of 2,000 caliper inches with large trees planted in scale with the size of the building. 7. The proposed berming and landscape buffers should be constructed concurrent with Phase I in order to help establish a visual barrier now that would be more effective at the time of construction of latter phases. 8. Dedication of Research Road (70 feet in right-of-way) between Anderson Lakes Parkway and the Vo-Tech. 9. Construction of a eight-foot wide bituminous trail and a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Research Road. In addition, five-foot wide concrete sidewalk connections should be constructed between the building parking areas and the roadway. 10. No mechanical units would be constructed on the roof. Mechanical units would be physically screened on the ground or contained inside of the building. 11. All open areas proposed on this site should be changed to open space on the Comprehensive Guide Plan. 12. The request for zoning with the first phase should also include a • Comprehensive Guide Plan request and substantiation from the proponent. 13. Preparation of the study model in order to appropriately determine what the visual off-site impacts would be and the level of berming and landscaping provided to visually enhance the project to downplay the industrial appearance. 14. Brick and glass would be exterior materials with the manufacturing buildings designed to have an office appearance. ( ( STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: November 22, 1985 SUBJECT: Douglas Planned Unit Development LOCATION: Southwest quadrant of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Highway #169 APPLICANT: Opus Corporation FEE OWNER: Douglas Skanse REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 68 acres. Background s•. o� �,o % 4 m This 68-acre site is part of the �- � :� It Northrup King Comprehensive Guide .'� '1 ,,,�a, Plan Change reviewed by the Planning ?gs'rrti, s4 Commissioni and ,approved. by the Cityen .,\ e j4Rr Council in March, 1985. Attachment " /y/�� A indicates the current Corn- prehensive Guide Plan for the entire ' - ->,.` -oo�c Northrup King site, and the area `` ` ��`� within the dotted line is the V" location of the Douglas Planned Unit �� PROPOSED SITE-C ♦ /• Development (PUD). The approved ♦ ! /� Guide Plan Change indicates Medium C� / \ ,4 to High Density Residential, Office, g'�i�'a- , ' and Commercial land uses for this '"' !j• � site. The request from the Douglas : �•&�.�.7.,-; -- Corporation would change a portion ,yY , VAN of I of the Guide Plan below Anderson am 0' ���►3��.C4 �0 • II ' 3 Lakes Parkwayfrom Office and High '-,! ''.w - �► ♦�►4 Density Resdential to Industrial �° ` +i����4 ,��r"Ti and Open Space. Part of the Open )�� ���4♦��40�4 Space south of the area is proposed r�+�•�•��� .���� - .Z for rezoning in the future to '� 4'4,,ftS♦e ..A4 _ J__' Industrial as expansion area. ,, ��*•����`j:•4 (�-�I- Prior Guide Plan Change Request •.•.����`S�� .1 Requests for Guide Plan Change on 'f' :. ' b .4�..7��1�i1 �� the Northrup King site include a �_, i December, 1984 request by Hoyt - "y AREA LOCATION MAP ( Douglas Planned Unit Development 2 November 22, 1985 Development for approximately 100 acres of Industrial development, six acres of Commercial, and 70 acres for High Density Residential. The initial request was denied by the Planning Commission. Subsequently, Tandem Corporation and Northrup King submitted requests for Guide Plan Change which included less Industrial use and more Residential use. After several meetings with the Planning Commission, a Guide Plan Change was finally approved which did not include any Industrial uses, but did give consideration for Office uses, with the balance of the site transitioning from west to east from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. Current Comprehensive Guide Plan The current Comprehensive Guide Plan is appropriate for a number of reasons including the following: 1. Provides enough housing (1,100 to 2,000 units) to retain the original 1982 Guide Plan balance for housing (1,100) plus provides 900 units more to meet housing demand created by future office uses on-site. 2. Land use transition is provided from west to east with Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential adjacent to the Centex project, Medium Density Residential to High Oensity Residential in the center of the project, as a transition to Office uses along Highway #169. 3. Office use along Highway #169 and adjacent to the Vo-Tech site is compatible because of the impacts of traffic and noise from Highway #169. 4. The Guide Plan maintains the residential character of the surrounding land uses adjacent to the entire Northrup King site. Residential uses are depicted on the Guide Plan to the west, north, and east of the site. The Hennepin Vo-Tech is south of the site. 5. The Guide Plan designates the uses in the most appropriate locations. Lower Density Residential uses are proposed adjacent to the steep sloped areas along Purgatory Creek where, because of the lower density minimal site grading would occur, and the original site character could be retained. High Density Residential and Office uses are proposed on the relatively level portions of this site between the center of the site and Highway #169. Impacts of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change Changes in the Comprehensive Guide Plan must be carefully analyzed in terms of the effect on the Guide Plan balance, impact on surrounding land uses, traffic impacts, and site specific impacts. Each of these issues will be examined in detail in the following sections. Affect on Current Guide Plan Balance The conversion of Residential and Office guided areas to Industrial will displace between 1,100 to 1,300 housing units. These figures are the result of a reduction of Residential land area which translates into 500 to 1,000 units less than the currently approved Guide Plan. The amount of Industrial acreage proposed on -the property will generate a need for 892 housing units based upon a ratio of approximately 30 housing units per acre of industrial land. ( C Douglas Planned Unit Development 3 November 22, 1985 Impact on Surrounding Land Uses The current Comprehensive Guide Plan for the Northrup King site dated March 19, 1985, has developed this site into a strong residential character. Surrounding land uses are also residential in character with the exception of the Vo-Tech School to the south of the site. The change in land use designation to Industrial would create an island of Industrial land uses in the middle of an area guided as Residential. Impacts on surrounding land uses are also visual. Staff expects, that because of the height and setback of the building, the project will be highly visible from Staring Lake and from the Centex project to the west. The PUD as proposed provides distance, but no physical interruption for any transition to offset these visual impacts. Site Impacts The PUD plan involves an office building and a series of industrial buildings connected with a common pedestrian corridor totalling 320,000 square feet. The project is 13% office and 87% assembly/warehousing. The site plan is proposed at I- 2 setbacks, which Staff feels is inappropriate given the size of the project. At the very least, the I-5 Zoning district should be required, which has 75-foot minimum setbacks to building and parking. The open space proposed along Anderson Lakes Parkway should be made a part of the site and incorporated into the setbacks. The site is being developed at a Floor Area Ratio of 0.24 on 30.6 net acres of land. If the entire 68 acres is utilized, which includes 38 acres of open space, the Floor Area Ratio would be 0.12. While this is a low intensity land use, it should be pointed out that the open space to the south of the site is not proposed for dedication and includes future long-term expansion of the project. The future long-term expansion of the project would occupy approximately 20 acres and at a 0.3 Floor Area Ratio, an additional 261,000 square feet of building area would be possible. The additional square footage would increase traffic significantly and impact the affected intersection of Anderson Lakes Parkway, changing the level of service from a D to an F condition, which would not be acceptable. Parking for a project of this size would be based upon actual uses of the building which have not been identified in detail. The percentage of assembly and warehouse has not been specifically identified, though the proponent has indicated to Staff that it would be mostly assembly. Using 13% office, 67% assembly, and 20% warehouse, total parking required would be 869 spaces. A total of 777 is provided on-site. The architecture of the project could be described as warehouse and industrial. The buildings together appear quite massive. The building is 24 feet in height and collectively occupy an area approximately 600 feet in length and 500 feet in width. The proponent has attempted to respond to initial Staff concerns about the massiveness of the structures and has proposed building jogs. While this is a start in the right direction, the degree of architectural refinement at this point is not adequate to offset the industrial appearance of the project. Use of brick on the building is helpful, but it is not a strong enough statement to negate the fact that the project is massive and industrial in nature. No rooftop mechanical screening plan is proposed at this time. Staff expects that Douglas Planned Unit Development 4 November 22, 1985 due to the size of the buildings, mechanical equipment will be large and numerous. In addition, Staff has observed a pattern with other industrial buildings, whereby rooftop units tend to "grow" at random according to the use of the building after projects are approved, making it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of screening proposed at time of site plan review. Minimal berming and landscaping is provided around the site perimeter. Because of the elevation of the property and height of the buildings, Staff expects the project will be highly visible from Staring Lake and the Centex project to the west. Staff feels that there is not an adequate transition provided to these differing uses when the massiveness of the project is taken into account. To summarize, the height of the building, massiveness of the structures, lack of proportionate architectural articulation, large parking areas, and minimal building setback all contribute to the industrial character of the project. The table below compares the Douglas project with four other large industrial users in the community. As the chart indicates, the Douglas project is comparable to these developments. INDUSTRIAL COMPARISONS DOUGLAS LEE DATA MTS ROSEMOUNT EATON Acres 64.9 27.9 24.3 43.8 42.6 Sq.Foot 320,000 200,000 290,000 209,000(2 bldgs)230,000 (3 bldgs.) Setback 150-foot 350-foot 120-300-foot 150-200-foot 200-300 feet FAR 0.11 0.16 0.27 0.11 0.12 Parking 760 614 600 600 400 Height 24 feet 24 feet 24 feet 24 feet 24 feet Length 600 feet 700 feet 600 feet 200-400(2 bldgs)300-400 (3 bldgs.) Width 500 feet 300 feet 500 feet 200-300 feet 500 feet Staff has prepared site plans for each of the Industrial complexes at 200-scale to give you an idea of what the site typically looks like. Corporate Headquarters' Image The proponents have indicated to Staff that they wish to create a corporate business campus-like atmosphere on-site. Corporate headquarters means generally a single user for the project and the image conveyed depends upon the use of the building. The use of the building is largely assembly and warehouse and that is the type of image that is conveyed. The type of corporate headquarter's image appropriate on this site consistent with the Guide Plan office designation would be comparable to Super Value on Bryant Lake, or General Mills on Highway #12 in Golden Valley. Both of these projects are office uses, parking and loading areas are not visible, and particular attention is made to existing site features and enhancement of them. (- Douglas Planned Unit Development 5 November 22, 1985 Serious consideration is given to elaborate landscaping including the creation of ponds, creeks, flowerbeds, walk-way systems, jogging trails, and recreational facilities. The development of the open space helps complement the office character of the project. The site plan as proposed conveys a corporate image similar to the four other industrial users identified in the industrial comparisons chart. This type of image is fine in an area designated and planned for industrial but is not acceptable in this location. An example of an area already planned and approved for this type of use would be Technology Park, located adjacent to the MTS campus reserved for large- scale industrial buildings up to 350,000 square feet per site, and 1.4 million square feet overall. Is any Industrial Land Use on this site appropriate? At the time of the Hoyt and Northrup King requests for Industrial development of the Northrup King site, the Planning Commission did not feel that an adequate substantiation had been provided for changing the Guide Plan to allow any type of Industrial use on the property. Even though a specific PUD plan has now been prepared, it reinforces the position that Industrial land use is not appropriate. The site plan as proposed contributes to a warehouse, or industrial, appearance of the property. There may be industrial land use types which may be appropriate on this site; however, it would be up to the individual proponents to provide a convincing argument. At the very least, Staff would expect that industrial land uses on the property would have to convey a business-like campus atmosphere, provide a building architecture which is office-like in appearance, provide large open space and natural amenity-type areas which contribute to an open feeling on the site. This would include ponds, creeks, recreational facilities, generous landscaping, and lots of flowering plant materials. It may be possible, using these criteria, to develop an acceptable site plan; however, since 87% of the building is warehouse and assembly, Staff doubts, at least architecturally, that this would possible. The industrial land uses on the property, although at a low Floor Area Ratio, will still impact visually adjacent properties because of the lack of transition to offset building height and mass. In addition, the industrial use on this site is an island in an area that is developing primarily as residential. Regardless of the amount of buffer that could be provided, industrial use in this location does not make sense because of other impacts which are land use and traffic related. Although the traffic study would indicate that the traffic would improve slightly if this project was approved based upon the square footage, bear in mind that there are approximately 20 acres to the south of the project, which if developed as industrial, would double the amount of square footage on the property and likely change the level of service at affected intersections from a D to an F condition, even with improvements for better traffic flow at the -intersections, including additional left-turn lanes. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff feels that the proponent's PI10 concept is indicative of a typical industrial facility comparable to other large scale industrial projects in town which would not be acceptable on this site, and would recommend denial for the following reasons: 1. The change from residential to industrial will displace between 1,100 to 1,300 housing units, changing the Guide Plan balance. ( ( I f Douglas Planned Unit Development 6 November 22, 1985 4 2. The project is a spot land use in an area guided for residential land uses. 3. This project will develop over a long period of time, and once the Guide Plan is changed to industrial, the City will lose most of its control over site development. 4. An industrial use of this site will visually impact surrounding uses. The site is visible from Staring Lake and Centex Homes. 5. The project as proposed is 87% industrial and 13% office. 6. The buildings collectively are very massive and inappropriate visually next to residential uses. 7. The buildings appear industrial architecturally. Brick alone doesn't negate the industrial appearance. 8. The site plan as proposed doesn't convey a business campus image since special site features, heavy landscaping and recreational amenities, are lacking. 9. With future development of land to the south, traffic will be at level of service F or worse, which is unacceptable. In addition, and though not identified in traffic study, Staff would expect significant truck traffic. 10. The size and number of mechanical units on the building also convey an industrial image. Mechanical units are difficult to screen and to control since mechanical units have a tendency to "grow" with the use of the building. 11. Not enough parking is provided on-site. ..,. 4K-' COMPREHENSIVE GUI( LAN AMENDMENT l 177 ACRE RESEARCH FARM I /' / ( OP V • ( ' filiPir i &\ - i rbFc 14 i ,\ I ..,et 4, I I ___77. /{ /;111/P!I 11 ,.. , ),•6.4.-' OP i, -- "" -- t____—___,.... \ . / ,,,, , 1, I t,‘• __-- illEn..1110....-Ti\ / ftF 4 lI--i r0,P4 g olllO,g" \' corn / 1111,/11i1 1 \_... 741"" ka- ,, -z -- 1 li -00..---- ---°"*`440,101P44Ce,Pfir I \- -.' _ ----V ___, -- \ ''''' , ''''''',--.4---- P stiif t 40/ I ii 14 \ w,..--1, ( --- 'i • if c, ) i 0 . , t' Ai ofik a_ s 1 TC 7:- 't. - 1 \ - \; . \.:;..\ ) •— ,, , 7----,. , - (r---------C // - _ •_ ,I A TANDEM-r-rArictur- NORTHRUP KING CO _ RESEARCH FARM EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA . . MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, January 13, 1986 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. • A. DOUGLAS CORPORATION HEADQUARTERS, by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 68 acres for construction of 320,000 square feet of office/warehouse. Location: West of Highway #169, South of New Anderson Lakes Parkway. A continued public hearing. At the request of the proponent for additional time to provide more 1 Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 13, 1986 information, the Planning Commission continued this item to this meeting from the December 9, 1485, meeting. Staff reported that, since that time, proponents had not met with Staff, nor provided any changes in the plan for Staff review. A letter reiterating the original request was submitted to the City prior to delivery of agenda packets. Mr. Arlyn Grussing, representing Douglas Corporation, stated that the proponents had decided to leave the plan as it was, that they felt it was a "special plan" as originally designed. Mr. Grussing reiterated several points from the previous meetings, noting that the building was being constructed on a concourse system; the amount of development shown in the plans would likely not be built out until the year 2000; the waste water facilities for the plant would be amongst the most modern available. He referred to the letter submitted to the City, which outlined the proponent's response to the fifteen points of the Staff Report of December 6, 1985, regarding the development. Mr. Grussing stated that the entire development would likely have an "institutional" look to it, like a school, which, he felt, would blend well with the Vocational-Technical School to the south. Bye stated that she was uncomfortable with the idea of depleting the City's stock of High Density Residential land, especially since this was one of the last locations for this land use within the Comprehensive Guide Plan. She stated that she felt that proponents had not provided a compelling reason to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan to the designation requested by the proponents. Hallett asked how many of the total housing units in the community would be single family and how many of the total units would be multiple family when the City was completely built up. Planner Enger responded that, based upon the Comprehensive Guide Plan, approximately 60% of the units would be multiple family units and 40% of the units would be single family units. Hallett asked how this compared to other communities. Planner Enger responded that the percentage of single family would be similar to Bloomington, more than what was present in Edina, and probably slightly less than what was present in Minnetonka. Planner Enger stated that, based on land uses in place already, the City would not be able to reach these ratios, but would likely end up with more single family units, instead. Planner Enger noted that the amount of land area to be occupied by single family land use was five times as great as that which would be occupied by multiple family land use. Hallett stated that he was uncomfortable with these ratios and felt the two numbers should be interchanged to provide for more single family units than multiple family units. He added that he felt there was already enough multiple development within the community, as planned. Bye stated that people in the 20-30 year old age range were not necessarily choosing to purchase single family detached dwellings for many reasons. She noted that multiple housing fit the needs of families which were starting out, as well as the needs of the "empty nesters" whose children had grown and were no longer living at home. Bye stated that because of the various needs multiple housing could fill, she did not feel the City should be short-sighted in terms of providing the type of housing that would meet the needs of many residents, now, and in the future. Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 13, 1986 Hallett stated that the City had approved approximately 1,50D units of multiple family, High Density Residential development in this area within the past year. In addition, he noted that the City would soon be reviewing an 800-unit multiple family, High Density Residential project just to the north of this site in the near future. He stated that he felt the City was • concentrating alot of High Density Residential development in this area and questioned whether this was wise. Hallett added that he felt this site could be suitable for the type industrial development proposed by the proponent. Bye stated that she had 8-10 years of background in the housing field for the county government. She stated that she had seen many changes to Comprehensive Guide Plan land use designations from housing to Industrial use, but that she had not seen any changes made from Industrial to housing use. She stated that it appeared that once a housing use was eliminated from a Comprehensive Guide Plan, it was not replaced elsewhere within that Comprehensive Guide Plan. She stated that, if she knew that there were other areas within the community where this amount of housing could be relocated, she would be more comfortable. She noted that the Staff had pointed out that this was the last parcel of any size available within the community with a designation for High Density Residential and that any other parcel of comparable size would require a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. Marhula suggested that it may be possible to convert an area designated for Low Density Residential over to High Density Residential in order to keep the population ratios approximately the same. He stated that he felt the site plan presented was a good one and that the uses proposed were clean manufacturing uses, adding that he felt the proponents were offerring an attractive proposition to the City. Johannes stated that he concurred with Marhula about the opportunity for population balance. He stated that he was not convinced that this was the only remaining area within the community which was suitable for High Density __ Residential development. Johannes expressed concern regarding the architectural appearance of the structures proposed. He stated that he felt the buildings appeared bulky, with few windows, more like a manufacturing plant. He stated that, if this was the type of building proposed, that there were other areas of the community which would be better suited to support this type of structure in a designated industrial park. Johannes stated that he felt this should be a "special" structure, if the City was to change its Comprehensive Guide Plan for it. Gartner stated that she felt there were other areas of the community which could support High Density Residential development, that this was not the only suitable location. With respect to the site plan, Gartner stated that she felt the building architecture could be improved and that she liked the open space areas proposed as part of the plan. Mr. Dick Putnam, Tandem Corporation, real estate brokers for the property, stated that his company was in the process of preparing an application to the City for a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment to change the designation Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 13, 1986 of the Industrial property in the west, southwest area of the community to residential. He stated that, currently, the Comprehensive Guide Plan did not indicate any multiple family housing in this area of the community. Mr. Putnam stated that he had suggested to the proponents that, instead of open space along the west portion of the property, they should perhaps construct the multiple family residential units as designated on the Comprehensive Guide Plan in order to provide a transition of unit type to the adjacent single family residential area. Planner Enger stated that the proposed mixed residential use in the southwest portion of the community could make sense, but that this matter was under study at this time. He stated that he agreed that it would require the change of currently designated Low Density Residential property to Medium, or High, Density Residential in order to make up the unit balance that would be eliminated by the conversion of this site to another land use category. Planner Enger expressed concern about the future land use of the property along Highway #169, currently designated for Office use by the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated that he was concerned that the amendment of the property proposed for an Industrial designation for the Douglas Corporation could have a significant influence on the property designated as Office along Highway #169. Planner Enger stated that, should Industrial zoning be granted for the Douglas proposal, it would make it easier to substantiate Industrial, or Commercial, zoning in the place of the Office land use currently in place. He stated that, while Douglas Corporation was looking ahead for a period of fifteen years, the City would have to live much longer with its decisions. Hallett asked if the public would be allowed to make use of the property designated as open space on the western portion of the development. Mr. Grussing stated that this would not be open to the public for liability reasons. Hallett asked if the covenants proposed by the developer to make this a permanent arrangement could be changed. Planner Enger stated that the covenants could be changed, if all parties agreed; however, the covenants proposed did not involve the City. Mr. Grussing stated that the City could use its legislative tools, such as the developer's agreement, to make this a permanent situation. Regarding the appearance of the buildings, Mr. Grussing stated that the proponents had only prepared enough information to deal with the Concept Stage level of plans. He stated that, based upon the decisions of the City regarding the Planned Unit Development Concept, Douglas would proceed to more detailed plans, which would include architectural renderings in greater detail. Johannes stated that he was concerned about the exterior appearance of the structures. He asked whether the City would have enough control within its Code to impose construction requirements at a any stage beyond the Concept Stage, if approval was granted of the request as presented at this time. Planner Enger stated that, within the next phase of the Planned Unit Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 13, 1986 Development, the City could request a development framework manual within which Douglas would be required to develop. He noted that any approval at this point would include the proposed clustering, or "concourse style" buildings, the relationship of the structures to the open space, and other land use elements shown by the proponents. Chairman Schuck stated that he saw nothing new in what was presented by Douglas Corporation at this time and that this concerned him, based upon statements made by the proponents about showing what was "special" about this plan at the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Bob Worthington, Opus Corporation, representing proponent, stated that proponents were requesting a land use decision regarding the appropriateness of Industrial use on this property. He stated that he felt the design issues were issues that could be worked out with the City, once the land use issue was settled. Mr. Worthington stated that if the proposed land use was not appropriate for the site, then it was likely that even good design would not help in this situation. He added that he felt the opportunity for control would be present at future stages of development of the property, if the City decided the Industrial land use was appropriate for this site. • Johannes asked if this had been done previously with other sites in the community, whereby development controls were initiated afterwards. Planner Enger responded that a similar situation had been created with the Prairie Center Business Park. • Planner Enger stated that there had not been any reasons offered by the proponents for changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan land use designation to Industrial. He pointed out that proponents had told the Commission that they would return to this meeting with changes; however, this had not been done. Planner Enger stated that the project should probably stay at the Planning Commission level for a longer period of time, if the Commission was not comfortable with the plan as shown. • Chairman Schuck stated that he felt the proponents were inflexible, in that it did not appear that they were willing to amend their plans. He stated that he did not feel there was room for negotiation with the proponents, based on the comments made by Mr. Grussing. Hallett stated that, while he was not adverse to an industrial land use on this site, he was expecting to see more from the proponents before arriving at this point in the process. Gartner stated that she liked the concept of the open space, but that she was uncomfortable with the industrial use as proposed in this location. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing and to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Douglas Corporation for Planned Unit Development Concept for approximately 68 acres for 320,000 sq. ft. of office/warehouse use, based upon the following findings: Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 13, 1986 i { d A. The land use request does not represent Industrial development above and beyond other developments of this type, which currently exist in the City within Industrial areas. B. The request for land use change has not been substantiated acceptably to the City. C. The City currently has adequate available acreage within its boundaries which has been designated for this use on the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Motion carried--4-2-0 (Johannes and Hallett against) Hallett stated that he felt the proposed mix of 60% multiple family units and 40% single family units for the community represented too high an amount of multiple family units, adding that this area would have as many as 1,500- 2,000 multiple family units, concentrating a large amount of multiple family units into one area. He stated that he liked the open space portion of the plan and felt there was an advantage to the use being located in close proximity to the Vocational-Technical School and the airport. He added that he felt a compromise was possible, and, therefore, he was not in favor of the motion. Johannes stated that his main concern was the exterior view of the structures, which, he believed, was something which could be mitigated by the proponents and City. Therefore, he was not in favor of the motion. u�� • Planning Commission Minutes 4 December 9, 1985 B. DOUGLAS CORPORATION, by Dpus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 68 acres for construction of 320,000 square feet of office/warehouse. Location: West of Highway #169, south of new Anderson Lakes Parkway. A continued public hearing. Staff reported that this item was continued from the November 25, 1985, meeting to allow Staff to gather additional data regarding the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan and the impact of the proposed land use change upon the overall land use balance within the community. Staff reviewed the data gathered regarding the proposed PUD Concept Plan, listing items of concern involving any future site plan detail for the project, as had been requested by the Commission. Planner Enger reviewed the findings of a memorandum dealing with the impact of the proposed land use change on the overall land use balance within the City and other impacts, such as traffic, of such a change to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated that the project had been reviewed with the Community Services Department and the Assessing Department with respect to questions raised at the previous meeting. The Community Services Department had reported that the City did not have any need for the proposed open space, or the proposed ball fields, in the plan. Facilities serving these purposes had been designated elsewhere in the community. Regarding total assessed value and, therefore, financial benefit to the community, the Assessing Department had evaluated the difference between the designated Comprehensive Guide Plan uses and the proposed use of the property. It was reported by the Assessing Department that the assessed valuation of the designated Comprehensive Guide Plan uses would be approximately $18,000,000.00, while the assessed valuation of a facility as proposed by Planning Commission Minutes 5 December 9, 1985 the proponent would be approximately S6,000,000.00, including consideration of fiscal disparities, or one-third that of the designated Comprehensive Guide Plan uses. Mr. Arlyn Grussing, representing proponent, stated that the proponents felt they would be creating a better situation for the community by their plan, versus the land uses designated by the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated that there would be less traffic generated from the site, there would be a good "marriage" between the proposed industrial facility and the Vocational- Technical School in terms of training and employment, and the open space would be available. Mr. Grussing stated that there would be a total of approximately 30 acres of residential use removed from the Comprehensive Guide Plan by their plan. Regarding the open space, Mr. Grussing stated that the proponents did not see the need for scenic easements over the open space area, whereby they would be required to give up all rights to the property. He added that they did not feel that the property should be dedicated to the City, either, if there was no credit toward Cash Park Fees given for the dedication. With respect to the 15-20 acres shown for use as ball fields, adjacent to the Vocational-Technical School, Mr. Grussing stated that proponents still wished to maintain this area for the possibility of another structure, should it be needed by the proponent in the future. He stated that proponents would be willing to commit to not selling it to another party for a different use. Mr. Grussing added that the proponents felt the most significant issue was that of land use. He stated that, prior to dealing with any of the site plan issues, the proponents felt the matter of land use needed to be resolved. He stated that the proponents were willing to work out the site plan issues with the Staff at a later time, after resolution of the land use. Planner Enger stated that there were still significant questions to be answered regarding exactly what the proponents were requesting. He stated that approximately one year ago, proponents were not certain how the all property would be used. Currently, proponents were indicating that they were unable to make any commitments about the open space to the west or the south and that their potential expansion plans were also uncertain and may affect open space. Planner Enger noted that with a similar project, the City and another proponent had worked out land use issues prior to commitment by the City as to land use. He stated that a list of criteria had been established by joint effort and then followed by the proponent. Planner Enger stated that Staff was uncomfortable with the fact that the proponents for the project would not commit to the conditions of the Staff Report, most of which were Code requirements. Mr. Grussing stated that the proponents were willing to commit to the plans they had shown the Commission. He stated that the proponents- needed additional time to review the conditions of the Staff Report. He stated that the proponents would comply with all Code requirements in their site plan. Planning Commission Minutes 6 December 9, 1985 Mr. Greg Nook, Opus Corporation, representing proponents, stated that he had reviewed all of the points of the Staff Report dealing with the site plan and felt that these were all items which could be complied with by the proponents. Planner Enger stated that all of the points of the Staff Report had been raised at the previous Commission meeting on this project, therefore, there should be no new information for proponents regarding the site plan. He reiterated concern that the proponents commit to meeting these requirements prior to action on the land use for the property. Hallett stated that he did not necessarily agree that 1,300 units of multiple family residential was the best use of this property. He pointed out that the current Comprehensive Guide Plan designations for the property were the result of a compromise situation of approximately one year ago. He questioned how much of an impact there would be by changing the land use designations for this area of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Hallett stated that he was not comfortable about the tentative nature of the open space at the south end of the property, adjacent to the Vocational-Technical School. He stated that he would prefer this to be definite in terms of use. Hallett stated that he was less concerned about what activities were taking place within the structures than he was about the outside appearance of the structure and whether it fit into the community. . Hallett asked Staff to explain the increase in traffic discussed in the Staff Report. Planner Enger explained that additional traffic would be introduced into the community from people not living in the community, but working in the community and having to commute to work. If housing were provided in the community for people also working in the community, there would be less traffic impact on the major thoroughfares connecting Eden Prairie to other communities. Planner Enger stated that about the same volume of traffic would be generated by both land uses, if developed completely. Hallett asked Staff how many apartment units were needed in Eden Prairie. Planner Enger responded that studies done during development of the Comprehensive Guide Plan and updated since that time, indicated that approximately one percent of the total land area of the community needed to be reserved for High Density Residential use. By comparison, he noted that approximately 35% of the total land area of the community had been reserved for Low Density Residential use, or single family homes. Planner Enger noted that the City had reviewed proposals on almost all of the land which had been designated for High Density Residential use. The property upon which this proposal was shown was one of the last pieces. Therefore, the City was not looking at a trend toward High Density Residential land-use for the future. He added that other remaining property designated for High Density Residential land use was not in as close proximity to services as this property, which made it an important site, also. Hallett stated that the property had not been designated as Highh-Density Residential until approximately one year ago. He asked if the City had suddenly determined that there was additional need for High Density Planning Commission Minutes 7 December 9, 1985 Residential land within the community. Planner Enger stated that the City had converted many acres of land designated as High Density Residential to other uses over the past several years. Staff had determined that over 200 acres had been converted in this manner. Therefore, the property for the Douglas proposal was not adding to the inventory of High Density Residential land within the community, but replacing some of the land which no longer had this designation. Hallett stated that he still felt the Douglas proposal could have merit in this location. Mr. Todd Walker, 8926 Pine Bluff Court, stated that he had attended the original hearings on this property, which had taken place approximately one year ago. He stated that he also had attended the meeting held by the developer regarding the current proposal and had been completely against it initially, as it appeared that the developer was returning to the completely industrial type of project which the City had denied at that time. Mr. Walker stated that, after talking with the developer, assurances had been given regarding protection of the open space area shown on the west side as a buffer to the existing residential area, screening of mechanical equipment from the existing residential area, berming and landscaping, no glare from the site, etc. He stated that, without these items, the proposal was difficult to accept at all. Mr. Walker noted that there were 25-30 children living on his block and that he was concerned about traffic, too. He stated that the children did not always play on their own street and that he was especially concerned about increased traffic on Research Road due to this type of development. Mr. Walker stated that he felt tight conditions should be agreed to ahead of time by the developer, guaranteeing development as discussed with the neighbors. Mr. Walker questioned what would happen if the economy suddenly became bad for this business, and what would become of the buildings proposed. He stated that this was all the more reason for having tight conditions up front in a development like this. Gartner stated that, at the time the previous developer had requested a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change about one year ago, one of the considerations for her vote was that the existing residents were in favor of being adjacent to residential uses. She added that there were also other considerations, and that she did not consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan as a small matter. Chairman Schuck stated that he felt articulation of the proposal and conditions of its development were important. He stated that he felt this was a rather significant decision that the Commission was being asked to make and that they needed as much information and assurance as possible to make an intelligent decision. He added that he felt the decisions the City made on this proposal would impact Eden Prairie for a long time to come. Chairman Schuck stated that it was his opinion that the City could likely control a High Density Residential use much more than an Industrial use in any case. He added that he was uncomfortable with the unknowns of this development proposal. Planning Commission Minutes 8 December 9, 1985 Hallett stated that he felt any controls needed to be in place early in the project development. Chairman Schuck concurred. Mr. Bob Worthington, Opus Corporation, representing proponent, stated that, if the issue was one of control over the development, Opus would be willing to commit to the controls requested by the City. He stated that they were already willing to commit to the conditions listed in the site plan review Staff Report, and that there may be suggestions for other items, as well. Mr. Worthington stated that the proponents had approached the City with a request for Planned Unit Development Concept in order to determine whether they were headed in the right direction with the development of the property, or not. He pointed out that each successive step would require substantial investment of the developer and the City in time and planning and engineering review. Chairman Schuck stated that there were many long range implications of this proposal, if approved. He stated that he felt the City must act on behalf of the existing residential neighborhood, not just on behalf of the developer, in a situation like this. Dodge stated that she was not convinced that the City had too much High Density Residential land. She stated that she felt it was important that people who worked in Eden Prairie could live in Eden Prairie. Chairman Schuck stated that the City had to be careful not to respond to the market when making decisions such as this. He stated that it was Staff's responsibility to keep the Commission abreast of the overall picture. In this case, Staff had raised several questions which impacted the overall picture of the City's development. Chairman Schuck stated that he did not take such recommendations lightly. Dodge stated that she felt this was a good location for High Density Residential use and that she felt it was better to keep such uses in closer proximity to each other. Commission, Staff, and proponent discussed the next step for this project. It was suggested that Staff and proponents review additional site plan issues and that proponent return to the Commission for additional review. Planner Enger stated that Staff did not feel that any persuasive reasoning had been cfferred to change the land use for this facility and that they would be looking at this in any future submissions from the proponent. He added that Staff would be open to incorporation of any additional conditions, or assurances, that the developer would have to offer, as well. Chairman Schuck stated that he felt the City must receive something special from this development, if it were to be approved. He reiterated concern that this was a major decision to be made by the City. He pointed out that once this property was taken out of circulation as High Density Residential, there was no turning back. Therefore, the City needed to be certain of any such decision. Hallett stated that, as proposed, he was not in favor of the development. He expressed concern about the site plan issues raised in the Staff Report. He also stated that he felt the proponents could make some changes in the 4.J Planning Commission Minutes 9 December 9, 1985 plan, which may improve the request. Mr. Worthington stated that the proponent felt that there were other things they could do with the development to illustrate the special qualities of this site for the use proposed. He asked the Commission for a continuance at this time. MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner, that this item be continued to the meeting of January 13, 1986, with direction to the proponent to reconsider the points regarding the site plan, the comments of the Commission from the meeting of November 25, 1985, and this meeting, the concerns of the Commission regarding the park and open space areas, and benefits to the City, in general, if the plan were to be implemented. Motion carried--3-1-0 (Dodge voted against) Dodge stated that she was not convinced that removing the property from the High Density Residential designation of the Comprehensive Guide Plan was appropriate, nor did she feel that proponents would be able to provide significant information to the contrary. " � e Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 25, 1985 C. OOUGLAS CORPORATION HEADQUARTERS, by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 68 acres for construction of 320,000 square feet of office/warehouse. Location: Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. A public • hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 25, 1985 Mr. Arlyn Gruessing, representing Douglas Corporation, gave a brief history of the company, its functions, and its products. He provided examples of the product manufactured by Douglas, explaining that they manufactured nameplates for identification purposes for many types of products. Mr. Gruessing stated that Douglas currently had over 500 employees all scattered around the Twin Cities Area in various buildings. He noted that one of the purposes for purchasing such a large site was to consolidate all the uses and to allow for any future expansion needs for the company at least to the year 2DDO. Mr. Gruessing stated that there were other factors involved in the corporation's selection of this site, including proximity to Flying Cloud Airport, the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, I-494, and Highway #169. In addition, Mr. Gruessing stated that Douglas Corporation felt it would be a mutual advantage to be located so close to the Hennepin County Vo-Tech for purposes of training and availability of employees. Regarding the park facilities shown at the southern end of the property, Mr. Gruessing noted that they had held preliminary discussions with the Vo-Tech to discuss the school's needs for park facilities. The facilities shown were intended to be shared between Douglas Corporation and the Vo-Tech. Mr. Greg Nook, Opus Corporation, representing proponent, reviewed the site characteristics and discussed the design of the development with the Commission. He stated that all of the concerns of Staff, including the number of parking spaces for the development, screening of mechanical equipment, etc., had been reviewed by the proponent and that these matters could be dealt with in greater detail as the plan proceeded through the review process. He stated that proponents were willing to work with the City in all these matters. Mr. Mitch Wonson, Benshoof and Associates, traffic consultants for proponent, stated that, based on studies performed on the proposed development, the amount of traffic generated from this use would be less than half of the amount that would be generated by the current land use designations for the site. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report of November 22, 1985, with the Commission. He stated that, by comparison, this proposed development appeared to be similar to other industrial uses within the community, noting the massive view of the structures, as an example. The development proposed 87% industrial use within the structures and 13% office use. It was noted in the Staff Report that this proposed industrial use would be visible from Staring Lake and the Ridgewood West neighborhoods, visually impacting both areas. The site plan for the development did not convey the typical business campus image with special site features such as heavy landscaping, recreational amenities, office-type architecture. The site plan indicated large and numerous mechanical units and that there would be significant truck traffic involved with the development. The Staff Report also dealt with the concern for a balance of uses within the Comprehensive Guide Plan, noting that the proposal would eliminate a significant amount of land for housing purposes within the community. The proposal represented a 1,000-1,200 unit decrease in the number of housing Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 25, 1985 units for the community. Gartner stated that she felt the project was potentially a good one for this site, given that the development would be owner-occupied. She expressed concern that the recreational space at the south end of the development be properly controlled so as to make sure the recreational uses were permanent. Bye concurred that the site design was a good one. She stated that her overriding concern was the impact of converting so many acres designated for residential use to industrial use. She questioned how many times this had been done in the past and whether the City's housing stock would be strongly impacted by such a conversion. Marhula stated that he was aware that the City had converted a substantial amount of property from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential over the years. He stated that the City had, at those times, acted on the best information available. Planner Enger explained that the City had set a goal to have a balance between the number of jobs in the community and the number of households in the community so that people working in the City could live in the City. He stated that the elimination of this area as a housing designated use would be significant and would impact the existing balance of the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Schuck stated he was concerned about the power and utility requirements for such a large manufacturing use. He also expressed concern about the amount of industrial use that would be within the community compared to other communities. Chairman Schuck noted that Eden Prairie already had a larger percentage of industrial use than many of its surrounding neighbors. Mr. Gruessing stated that not all 95 acres were proposed for conversion from residential to industrial use, but less than 30 acres were proposed to be so converted. He stated that the remainder of the property would be proposed for Open Space, or Office, use. Marhula asked if the proponents had considered moving the proposed industrial facility closer to Highway #169, thereby eliminating less of the residential use of the existing Comprehensive Guide Plan. Mr. Gruessing stated that this had been considered; however, it had been determined that the north-south collector street was too important to circulation for the site in general to be relocated, or even eliminated, as would happen with shifting of the industrial use closer to Highway #169. Bye asked if it would proponents knew when they may need to expand their facilities into the proposed recreation area at the south end of the property. Mr. Gruessing stated that it would likely be after the year 2000. Marhula asked if the north-south collecter street paralleling Highway #169 was necessary for traffic circulation. Planner Enger replied that the road was considered necessary based on existing Comprehensive Guide -Plan designations of the property. He stated that it may not be necessary with the plan proposed by Douglas Corporation. I Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 25, 1985 /' Marhula stated that he would like more information on the impact of the proposed land use change on the balance of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated that he had the same concerns as those listed in the Staff Report regarding the balance of uses. Marhula added that he did feel the plan, as presented, had merit, however. Other Commissioners concurred. Hallett stated that he felt it would be important to have a "permanent" dedication of the property at the south end of the proposed development for use as open space. Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to continue this item to the December 9, 1985, Planning Commission meeting pending additional information from Staff regarding the balance of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Motion carried--5-0-0 i • ( UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Feb. 3, 1986 B. Douglas Corporation Headquarters Refer to staff report dated December 6, 1985 and memo dated January 31, 1986 from Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services. Lambert introduced the architect representing the Opus Corporation. He reviewed the site plan which is located on the old Northrup King site between the vo-tech and new Anderson Lakes Parkway. The request is for PUD concept revision, as Douglas Corporation is proposing an automotive parts manufacturing facility and offices on the 65 acre site. Five to six acres to the west of the site are UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Feb. 3, 1986 -3- designated as open space. There would be no development at this time on 10-15 acres of the site on the south end. Be added that Lambert has spoken to Bob Worthington regarding the developer dedicating five acres to the Cityin lieu of cash park fees. Staff recommends a scenic easement commitment on the open space south of Research Road and west of the fire lane. The proponent feels using the extra land on the site for additional ballfields should be discussed. Shaw said since he believes the cheapest transportation for auto parts is by rail, this site would not be appropriate. The proponent said that since the parts Douglas manufactures are very small, most shipping is done by truck. Shaw said that since the manufacturing of heavy plastics requires a great deal of water, he asked where it would come from. The architect said that the water would come from the Northrup King well, go to the plant and then out again to the sanitary sewer system. Shaw asked the total number of square feet planned for the facility. The proponent said it is approximately 320,000 square feet. Kingrey said he is concerned with the forest area surrounding the site. Lambert said that land to the south is vo-tech property and the creek area is City boundary. Be feels nothing significant other than a trail could be done on five acres and it would work out just as well to have it as a scenic easement. Shaw discussed the possibility of bringing the water from the plant into Staring Lake since there will be no contaminants in it. The Commission agreed that this concept should be discussed further. Cook asked about the trail system on this site. Lambert said there will be a trail along Research Road and Staring Lake to the school. MOTION: A motion was made by Baker to recommend approval of the PUD concept as outlined in the staff recommendation, but to include the preservation of creek open space and the buffer, the potential for joint development of ballfields with the vo-tech, the potential for water augmentation to Staring Lake, the addition of a pathway system and payment of cash park fees. Kingrey seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. • MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services— DATE: January 31, 1966 SUBJECT: Community Services Department Staff Comments on Development Proposals DOUGLAS CORPORATION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT The request is for PUD District review on 68.6 acres. The major issue in this request is a land use issue on whether or not the City should allow an industrial use on an area that is guided for office and multi family housing. The only parks, recreation and natural resources considerations are relating to open space commitments and the impact industrial development would have on the adjacent park property. The Commission might wish to comment on the proposal to dedicate land in lieu of park fees. The Community Services staff have indicated to the developer that if industrial is approved on this site, staff would recommend a scenic easement on the open space commitment south of Research Road and west of the fire lane. Staff has further indicated to the proponent that staff would be recommending the Council accept park fees in lieu of the land dedication; however, the City would accept the land dedication as a gift, if the proponent wished to dedicate the park in that manner. Staff would recommend the Commission attempt to obtain a commitment on where a scenic easement dedication line would be established. It should be noted that the Planning Commission recommended denial of this request on a 4-2 vote. The Community Services staff have no recommendation one way or another regarding the land use; however, staff does recommend the City obtain the scenic easement and require payment of cash park fees if this project is approved. r This item was first brought to the Planning Commission in September of 1985 with a { request for Guide Plan change from low density reisdential to medium density residential and zoning district change from R1-22 to RM 6.5 on 7.58 acres, and preliminary plat of 8.36 acres of the two lots for the construction of 30 townhomes and a single family home. The request has now been changed to request for zoning district change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 8.36 acres and preliminary plat of 8.36 acres into 17 lots for construction of 16 single family homes. The site is located east of Alpine Trail, south of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. The development of this site will require extensive grading with cuts of up to 52' and fill of up to 24, which will result in removal of the majority of the vegetation on this site. Due to the steep grade of the road, even development of half acre lots would require nearly the same grading; therefore, tthe Community Services Staff recommend the approval of the Apline Village Single Family request as per the Planning Staff Report of January 10, 1986. • L • STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: February 7, 1986 PROJECT: F.S.I. Office Building LOCATION: South of City West Parkway, East of Shady Oak Road APPLICANT: Meyer, Scherer and Rockcastle, Ltd. FEE OWNER: Manhatten Properties REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 1.6 acres for construction of an office building. Backgound - ��' c41 �� This site is part of the approved \ City West Planned Unit Development 1, PROPOSED SITE: which identified an office use for this site. Having been previously �', • i. zoned Office (Dfc.) in 1983, based ` , .:3111 , upon plans for the Creative Resource Center (CRC) building, the proposed If2-84 Facility Systems Incorporated RM-65 (F.S.I.) office building is in conformance with the approved P.U.D. iy,t ::"Iiis and the Office Zoning District. y \ 10, ' t Adjacent land use designations \ y ` l�,,pp' include Neighborhood Commercial to pi�26 � 1� the west, Office to the north, High Density Residential to the east, and ' � ' Dpen Space to the south. Associated w �:� /�i� ,� a 8i-27 land uses include the Shady Oak .a�— Center zoned C-Reg-Ser to the west, ,� PUB �\ �I fl,.%' the Honeywell property currently L ,, J y�-illitili f undesignated to the north, and the I 'c/4 / ".., Park at City West zoned RM-2.5 to "y` r��r the east. .. �I �aoY s & A_'" 79 37r The current request is for a Zoning ��( K �-2IZR District Amendment within the Office (Ofc.) zoning district to allow for I ow. the construction of the F.S.I. 4' '- 79- 7 office building. % AREA LOCATION MAP= F.S.I. Office Building 2 February 7, 1986 Site Plan The site plan depicts a 19,000 square foot office building on a 1.6-acre parcel known as Lot 9, Block 1, City West Addition. The building has a base footprint of 9,500 square feet and a total Floor Area Ratio of 27.3%. Designed as a two-level building, the upper level, which fronts along the northern property line, measures 13.5 feet in height while the lower level measures 27.5 feet. The maximum height allowed in an Office Zoning District is 30 feet. Building setbacks are 25 feet from the front property line and 20 feet from the side property line. However, as the site plan indicates, the majority of the building is located 30 feet from the side lot line in addition to a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet from City West Parkway. These distances have occured because of the strange lot configurations within this area, including the property line jog in the northeast corner and the placement of City West Parkway. Due to the relatively small size of the site based upon proposed building square footage and parking requirements, the majority of the site is being used for parking. Oriented in an east/west direction, there are six parking bays located in front of the building with a driveway entering from City West Parkway and leading to the lower level parking garage. This driveway has been placed within 10 feet of the south property line and within approximately 40 feet of the pond. The southerly most parking stalls have also been placed within 60 feet of the pond. Because of this, Staff is recommending additional landscaping and berming along this portion of the site to help screen the parking areas and retaining walls. Access/Parking Based upon a building square footage of 18,200 (19,000 including garage), and a parking requirement of 5 parking spaces/10D0 square feet G.F.A., a total of 91 parking spaces would be required. A total of 75 spaces (3 garage stalls) are proposed to be constructed at this time. The additional 16 required parking spaces, two of which are located within the common easement, have been shown on the site plan as proof-of-parking. An agreement has been made with the adjacent property owner to allow this parking to occur, should it be required. Access to the site will be from City West Parkway through either the common easement along the west property line or from the driveway to the north. Ingress and egress can be described as unusual due to the median locations within City West Parkway and the shared driveway median limiting turning movements. Because of this, both access points have been designated as right-in/right-out only. Traffic As part of the City West Planned Unit Development, this site and the adjacent parcel were envisioned to be developed with up to 120,000 square feet of office uses at an F.A.R. of 0.30. This would allow for approximately 21,000 square feet of building to be constructed on this site. Approved in 1983, the CRC building was to be constructed containing 21,000 square feet which was in conformance with the approved City West P.U.D.. In terms of trip generation, a total of 258 trips per day with 36 trips occuring in the peak hour were calculated. These figures are based upon a trip generation rate of 12.3 trips F.S.I. Office Building 3 February 7, 1986 per day per 1000 square feet G.F.A. with 14 percent of the trips occuring in the peak hour. In comparison, based upon a total building square footage of 19,000 for the F.S.I. building, a total of 234 trips per day and 33 trips in the peak hour has been calculated. Overall, a reduction of 24 trips per day and 3 trips in the peak hour shall be realized, based upon the decrease in building square footage. Grading Elevations range from a highpoint of 903 in the center portion of the site and 898 in the northwest corner to a low point of 887 in the extreme southwest corner. The site slopes in a westerly and southerly direction towards the pond from the 903 contour elevation. Grading on-site to prepare for construction of the parking lot includes a minimal amount of cut and fill and a general leveling of the site. The building has been designed with two levels to take advantage of the slopes adjacent to the pond. The 1st floor elevation is at 905 and the lower level is at 893. A retaining wall is being proposed along the south property line to allow for parking and access to the lower level garage. The wall will be approximately 200 feet in length with approximately 4 feet being visible at the highest point. Located within 40 feet of the pond, Staff would recommend additional earth berming against the wall, thus reducing the effective height and increasing the amount of landscaping to help break up the view of the wall and parking area. Staff also recommends that a 5-foot berm be constructed along City West Parkway which, in addition to the proposed landscaping, should be adequate to screen the parking lot. Landscaping Based upon a total building square footage of 19,000 square feet, a total of 60 caliper inches would be required. The applicant is providing a total of 91.5 caliper inches. These plantings will be primarily located adjacent to City West Parkway and along the western property line. Designed to screen parking areas, Staff would also recommend increasing the berm height along City West Parkway to 5 feet. Prior to the City Council meeting, the applicant will be required to submit a revised landscape plan. Architecture The proposed building utilizes a basic rectangular design, with the south and east elevation featuring a curi-linear wall system designed to take advantage of views towards the pond. The building along this portion of the site is approximately 27.5 feet in height while the height of the building adjacent to City West Parkway and the shared driveway to the west is approximately 13.5 feet. In addition, a rotunda has been included as part of the entrance design and measures approximately 23 feet in height. Primary building materials include face brick and glass, with accent material along the curved wall being tile faced concrete block and colored precast concrete. Because colored precast concrete is not an acceptable building material, Staff recommends the substitution of this material, with another material compatible with the adjacent tile faced concrete block. As part of the building elevation along the west and north elevation, a subtle brick pattern has been introduced to add variety to the expanse of wall in these locations. Staff has reviewed the pattern with the associated brick colors and F.S.I. Office Building 4 February 7, 1986 determined that the pattern is very subdued and portrays an "office" character. Samples of the exterior building materials and colored building elevations will be available for review by the Planning Commission. Utilities Water and sanitary sewer service is available to this site. These services can be provided by tapping an existing 10" water line and an existing 8" sanitary sewer line within City West Parkway and extending two, 8" lines to the building. Storm water service will be provided by a series of catch basins located within the parking lot area. All storm water captured within this system will be released into the pond located immediately south of the proposed development project. Signage and Lighting, Prior to building permit issuance, overall signage and lighting details shall be submitted for review and approval. All signage should be of a consistent size and style. Lighting shall be restricted to down-cast luminars. Pedestrian Circulation There is an existing 8-foot bituminous trail located to the south of the proposed F.S.I. building adjacent to the pond. In order to provide an additional ammenity to this site, Staff would recommend that a connection from the lower level of the building be made to this trail. Staff Recommendations A. Prior to City Council review, proponent shall, 1. Submit a revised landscape plan. 2. Submit a revised grading plan, depicting a 5-foot berm along City West Parkway and additional berming along the retaining wall. 3. Submit a revised site plan. 4. Provide samples of exterior building materials. B. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall, 1. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control, and utility plans for review by the City Engineer. 2. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. 3. Provide signage and light details. j. 4. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. 5. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. F.S.I. Office Building 5 February 7, 1986 6. Submit a copy of the shared access agreement for review and approval. C. Concurrent with building construction, proponent shall provide for an appropriate connection between the building and the existing 8-foot bituminous trail adjacent to the pond. D. This project will be a part of the overall City West Homeowners' Association. E. This project would also be responsible for their proportionate share of cost relating to improvements to Shady Oak Road. J I MARCH 4,1986 180 VOID CHECK 4.98- . s16 VOID OUT CHECK 130.50- -25702 MAYWOOD TOUR RESERVATIONS EXPENSES -MUSEUM TOUR -FEES PD 14.00 25703 NORTHWESTERN BELL SERVICE 3749.37 25704 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FEE- WATER DEPT 500.00 25705 UNIVERSITY OF MN SEMINAR - ASSESSING DEPT 150.00 25706 JAN LARSON - METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEMINAR - CITY MANAGER & COUNCIL MEMBER 80.00 25707 WELCH VILLAGE WELCH VILLAGE SKI TRIP - FEES PD 150.00 25708 GRDUND WATER QUALITY CONTROL UNIT CONFERENCE - BLDG DEPT 35.00 25709 KEYE PRODUCTIVITY CONFERENCE - POLICE DEPT 99.00 25710 MID-STATES TECHNICAL INVESTIGATOR SEMINAR - POLICE DEPT 50.00 25711 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 5100.57 25712 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 434.82 25713 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 666.09 25714 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE 3923.98 25715 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 235.95 25716 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUDR 1155.74 25717 EAGLE WINE CO LIQUOR 4138.99 25718 DANA GIBBS PACKET DELIVERIES 52.00 25719 SOUTHDALE YMCA BOOKS - COMMUNITY CENTER 37.96 25720 JANE LARSON -METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEMINAR -CITY COUNCIL 20.00 25721 NORWEST BANK HOPKINS PAYROLL 2/7/86 840.00 25722 MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY ADULT DAY OUTING -FEES PD 34.00 25723 FOREPAUGH'S ADULT DAY OUTING -FEES PD 184.10 25724 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 2284.65 25725 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 13713.15 26 NDRTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 69.91 za727 AT & T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 50.47 25728 AT & T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 231.19 25729 SUSAN KORTS REFUND SWIMMING LESSDNS 40.00 25730 OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE - STREET DEPT 125.00 25731 CHRIS J FLECK SUPPLIES - SR CENTER 4.98 25732 NORTHWESTERN BELL SERVICE 51.31 25733 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE JANUARY 86 FUEL TAX 424.83 25734 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE JANUARY 86 SALES TAX 15452.15 25735 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL CENTERS TECHNICIAN TRAINING - ENGINEERING DEPT 140.00 25736 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE - PARK MAINTENANCE 40.00 25737 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE - ENGINEERING DEPT 75.00 25738 WARNING LITES OF MN INC CONFERENCE - ENGINEERING DEPT 20.00 25739 DUN & BRADSTREET BUSINESS EDUCATI REGISTRATION FEE - FINANCE/MANAGER 194.00 25740 JASON-NORTHCO PROPERTIES RENT -LIQUOR STORES 6659.51 2574I ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 1425.00 25742 QUALITY WINE CO LIQUOR 2165.22 25743 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 91.77 25744 MARK VII SALES WINE 16.41 25745 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 4625.49 25746 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 578.64 25747 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 727.33 25748 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 2687.71 25749 MANKATO STATE UNIVERSITY SUMMER JOB RECRUITMENT DAY 5.00 25750 APPLIED LEARNING WORKSHOPS INC WORKSHOP- WATER DEPT 45.00 .'-751 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 5240.03 /52 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 109.00 25753 MINNESOTA REC & PARK ASSOC VOLLEYBALL TEAM ST TOURNAMENT -FEES PD 375.00 25754 MINNESOTA REC & PARK ASSOC BASKETBALL TEAM ST TOURNAMENT -FEES PD 270.00 7945384 , 7 25755 MINNESOTA REC & PARK ASSOC WOMENS VOLLEYBALL ST TOURNAMENT -FEES PD 66.00 25756 ACRD-MINNESDTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 272.85 25757 AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS CHEMICALS - WATER DEP 41.20 5758 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC UTILITY BILL STUFFERS - WATER DEPT 230.00 a759 AMERICANNA VENTURES INC SCHOOL - POLICE DEPT 134.61 2576D EARL F ANOERSEN & ASSOC INC STREET SIGNS 2663.95 25761 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 13.80 25762 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 831.75 25763 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -HEAD LIGHTS/SPARK PLUGS/WIPER BLADES/AIR 380.67 FILTERS - EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 25764 VERNON JAMES BERGSTROM BB PISTOL - POLICE DEPT 38.13 25765 BIG WHEEL AUTO STORES PAINT/SWITCHES/WASHER PUMP I77.50 25766 BLUMBERG COMMUNICATIONS INC VIDEO CASSETTES -FORESTRY DEPT 51.59 25767 RICK BOLINSKI JANUARY 86 MILEAGE 57.25 25768 BORCHERT-INGERSOLL INC MOTOR - STREET DEPT 116.39 25769 LEE M BRANDT HOCKEY OFFICIAL -FEES PD 162.00 25770 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC -SERVICE - FIRE STATION SITE/ROUND LAKE 2681.7D PARK 25771 BROWN PHOTO FILM PROCESSING -POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT 44.45 25772 CARPET CITY TILE -P/W BLDG 627.7D 25773 BRW -SERVICE -ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY/PRAIRIE 3564.33 CENTER DRIVE 25774 MIKE BURGETT BASKETBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 156.00 25775 BUSINESS FURNITURE INC CHAIR - WATER DEPT 175.00 25776 BUSINESSLAND CENTER #079 COMPUTER SYSTEM - FIRE DEPT 3145.22 25777 GEORGE BUTLER CONST CO REFUND DUPLICATE PAYMENT OF STREET SIGNS 413.15 25778 CHAPIN PUBLISHING CD LEGAL ADS - PARK MAINTENANCE 96.20 25779 COPY EQUIPMENT INC BLUELINE/TAPE -ENGINEERING/ASSESSING DEPT 139.70 75780 CUSTDM FIRE APPARATUS INC FIRE FIGHTING UNIT -GRASS RIG 11210.00 ( 781 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME -WATER DEPT 3395.97 4a782 DALCO -SUPPLIES-FIRE/POLICE/COMMUNITY CENTER/ 1312.87 WATER DEPT 25783 CRAIG W DAWSON MILEAGE 30.25 • 25784 STEVE DURHAM MILEAGE - PLANNING DEPT 7.50 25785 JEFF ELWELL MILEAGE -COMMUNITY CENTER 10.00 25786 CHRIS ENGER FEBRUARY EXPENSES -PLANNING DEPT 165.00 25787 EPA AUDIO VISUAL INC SERVICE - WATER DEPT 108.92 25788 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC ADJ RINGS/GRATES - SEWER DEPT 377.00 25789 JOHN ESS &_SONS INC EMERGENCY LIGHT -FIRE STATION 39.36 I 25790 RON ESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL - FEES PD 134.00 25791 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC CHLORINE - WATER DEPT 576.79 25792 FITNESS STORE STEERING ROD - COMMUNITY CENTER 13.47 25793 FLEET MAINTENANCE INC FILTER FOR TREE SKIDDER - PARKS 8.48 25794 FOX MCCUE & MURPHY AUDIT SERVICE 2425.00 25795 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR & PARTS - POLICE DEPT 116.60 25796 GNERER WELDING INC EYEBOLT/NUTS - PARK MAINTENANCE 16.50 25797 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTERS PARTS - EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 168.56 25798 W W GRAINGER INC SNAP DISC - PW/PARK BLDG/WATER-DEPT 59.83 25799 HACH CO CHLORINE/REPAIRS- WATER DEPT 128.95 25800 MICHAEL W HAMILTON VOLLEYBALL/BASKETBALL OFFICIAL - FEES PD 100.00 25801 HARMON GLASS REPLACE GLASS - SR CENTER 14.85 25802 PETE HESS BROOMBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD I43.0O r k ,o84404 25803 CHARLES HILKER BROOMBALL OFFICIAL - FEES PD 348.00 25804 HENNEPIN COUNTY BUREAU OF PUBLIC SUPPLIES -PARK MAINTENANCE 38.94 '5807 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPT OF PROPERTY VOTER REGISTRATION VERIFICATIONS I8.62 _5806 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS RECORDING/FILING- ENGINEERING DEPT I0.0O 25807 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 JAN 86 CUSTODIAL SERVICE 3080.31 25808 INTL ASSOC OF ASSESSING OFFICERS DUES - ASSESSING DEPT 75.00 25809 JAK OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES -POLICE DEPT 10.12 25810 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC SUPPLIES - WATER PLANT 5.20 25811 CARL JULLIE FEBRUARY 86 EXPENSES 111.23 258I2 DAVID KING DRIVING SCHOOL - POLICE DEPT 6.94 25813 KARP BAKING SODA - POLICE DEPT 27.35 25814 TOM KEEFE BASKETBALL OFFICIAL - FEES PD 325.00 25815 KINGDALE KENNELS INC I/2 80ARDING OF 2 DOGS - POLICE DEPT 39.00 25816 DALE LACHERMEIER SILICON GLAZE 21.00 25817 ROBERT LAMBERT FEBRUARY EXPENSES 165.00 25818 LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR EQUIPMENT REPAIR -PARK DEPT 41.20 25819 LYMAN LUMBER CO LUMBER - STREET MAINTENANCE 35.52 0.00 25821 PHILIP MATHIOWETZ SPRINKLER SYSTEM SCHOOL - FIRE DEPT 181.02 25822 METRO PRINTING INC CARDS - POLICE DEPT 325.00 25823 METROPOLITAN FIRE EQUIP CO CHEMICALS - FIRE DEPT 49.10 25824 METROPOLITAN SENIOR FEDERATION 1986 DUES - SENIOR CENTER 25.00 I; 25825 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM MARCH SEWER SERVICE 88039.96 25826 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM JANUARY 86 SAC REPORT 2645.75 , 25827 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO CONCESSION SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 281.00 25828 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP -STREET 24.98 25829 MPLS AREA CHAPTER LIFE SAVING COURSE -COMMUNITY CENTER 70.00 25830 MPLS STAR & TRIBUNE CO ADS - POLICE DEPT 105.00 ti i831 MPLS STAR & TRIBUNE CO AD - COMMUNITY CENTER 15.00 t5832 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 3903.12 25833 MN DEPT OF P/S PHONE CONNECTION - POLICE DEPT 150.00 25834 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADS -LIQUOR STORES 120.96 25835 MINNESOTA WANNER CO RACHET WHEEL/LOCKING ASSEMBLY- FIRE DEPT 43.95 25836 R E MOONEY & ASSOCIATES INC PAINT - WATER DEPT 90.70 25837 GREGORY J MUELLER VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 52.00 25838 MUNICI-PALS MEMBERSHIP FEE FOR 1986- 5.00 25839 JEFF NELSON BROOMBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 127.00 25840 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 5849.83 25841 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 7598.65 25842 MARRY H ORTLOFF HOCKEY OFFICIAL -FEES PD 56.00 25843 JAMES PETTIER EXPENSES - POLICE DEPT 3.98 25844 KEITH POKELA VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 104.00 25845 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO SUPPLIES - COMMUNITY CENTER 103.00 '. 25846 JOYCE PHELPPS SKATING INSTRUCTOR -FEES PD 162.00 25847 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN ROTARY SWEEPER -POLICE DEPT 1469.65 25848 PROJECT PLUMBING REFUND GAS FITTER LICENSE 15.00 25849 R & R SPECIALTIES INC -REPAIRS/AIR FILTER/SHARPEN BLADES - 148.85 COMMUNITY CENTER 25850 RADIO SHACK MESSAGE TAPE- POLICE DEPT 5.25 25851 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC SERVICE -TECHNOLOGY DRIVE 5874.16 25852 ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES CO REPAIRS -EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 119.62 25853 ROGERS SERVICE CO ALTERNATOR - EQUIPMENT SERVICE 35.50 25854 RODNEY RUE ASCE 1986 DUES - ENGINEERING DEPT 80.00 ( ',855 ST CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY ADVANCED DRIVERS TRAINING - POLICE DEPT 712.00 12295046 25856 ST PAUL PIONEER PRESS AND DISPATC EMPLOYMENT AD - 81.40 ,857 KURT SANDNESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL -FEES PD 93.50 `', J858 TIM SATHER DRIVING SCHOOL - POLICE DEPT 6.95 25859 ELIZABETH SAUGEN VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL FEES PD 416.00 25860 ERIC SAUGEN VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 546.00 25861 DALE SCHMIDT MN STREET SUPT MEETING -STREET DEPT 12.00 25862 SEARS ROEBUCK & CO WRENCHES/SCREWDRIVERS - WATER DEPT 67.46 25863 SHOW QUALITY PET PRODUCTS INC KENNEL SUPPLIES - POLICE DEPT 10.95 25864 THE W GORDON SMITH CO -CONNECTORS/FUSE/PROTECTOR/DISTRIBUTOR- 79.73 -EQUIPMENT ?AINTENANCE/HATER PLANT/ COMMUNITY CENTER/PARK MAINTENANCE 25865 KARY SMITH BASKETBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 121.00 25866 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP MOTOR OIL - EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 22.80 25867 SPRAY CAN SPECIALTIES INC AERSOL CANS -ORANGE - WATER PLANT 49.80 25868 BARBARA STRUWE EXPENSES - PLANNING DEPT 7.00 25869 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET SWITCH - EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 5.18 25870 VALERIE SWANSON VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 39.00 25871 LOWELL THONE NORTH STAR MEETING - BLDG DEPT 15.0D 25872 KEVIN TIMM BASKETBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 78.00 25873 TRI-STATE BEARING CO CHAIN/CONNECTING LINK - PARK 19.66 MAINTENANCE 25874 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO -OXYGEN/ACETYLENE/WELDING GLOVES/VICE-GRIP 107.18 -CARBON DIOXIDE - EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/ PARK MAINTENANCE 25875 VIKING LABORATORIES INC CHEMICALS - COMMUNITY CENTER 522.40 25876 VWR SCIENTIFIC DIV OF UNIVAR ELECTRODE - WATER PLANT 59.35 95877 MARY WELLS SEMINAR EXPENSES - PLANNING DEPT 12.50 ( 378 WEST WELD CHAIN HOIST - EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 238.35 'cD879 WILSON TANNER INCENTIVES PLAQUES - POLICE DEPT 45.OD 25880 WOOD BEAR STABLES REFUND VENDING MACHINE LICENSE 15.00 25881 KEN WORDE HOCKEY OFFICIAL -FEES PD 169.50 25882 ZIEGLER INC PLUG/GASKET/PAN -EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 237.12 25883 ZIEGLER INC CAP/BRACKET/BOLT/NUTS -STREET DEPT 213.47 25884 ZIEGLER TIRE SERVICE CO REPAIR LOADER - EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 56.00 334730 $242595.64 6 • • DISTRIBUTION BY FUND • 10 GENERAL 62037.46 11 CERTIFICATE OF ?MOEBI 14278.01 15 LIQUOR STORE-F V M 27021.80 17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 19057.23 31 PARK AC0UIST & DEVELOP 1474.90 76 P/S & PIN BOND FUND 627.70 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 2044.90 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 5E74.16 73 WATER FUND 17507.90 77 SEWER FUND 91152.15 90 TAX INCREMENT FUND 1519.43 $242595.64 • { l CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-39 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive Municipal Plan ("Plan"); and, WHEREAS, the Plan has been approved by the Metropolitan Council; and, WHEREAS, the proposal of the City of Eden Prairie for designation of its Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line as a Year 2000 MUSA Line requires the amendment of the Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby adopts the amendment of the Plan as follows: the Metropolitan Urban Service Area Line shall be a Year 2000 Line, along with the text changes attendant thereto. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 4th day of March, 1986. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk MEMORANDUM ( TO: Planning Commission FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: February 7, 1986 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment--Designation of Year 200D MUSA Line Eden Prairie's current Comprehensive Guide Plan anticipates a new trunk sewer, referred to as Mitchell/Red Rock/Staring trunk (MRS) being extended into Southwest Eden Prairie in three phases between 1980 and 1990. The MRS trunk was to tie in to the Purgatory Creek Interceptor Sewer at Purgatory Creek, north of Staring Lake. Phase I was scheduled for 1980-81, Phase II for 1983-85, and Phase III for 1985-90. Although we have had interest from developers for several years to extend this trunk, the City did not wish to open up an entirely new area for development before other large areas in the City, which were currently serviced, were developed. The timing for this extension is now appropriate. Within the same time frame that Eden Prairie has been anticipating extension of the MRS trunk, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the Metropolitan Council were studying possible routes for an additional interceptor sewer planned to relieve capacity problems for the Lake Minnetonka/Shorewood Area. After considerable negotiation, all agencies concerned have agreed that putting the interceptor on the same alignment as Eden Prairie's MRS trunk would serve a dual purpose and save money. The savings to Eden Prairie is estimated at $1,000,000. The Metropolitan Council was reluctant to locate the sewer in the MRS alignment because it expanded the possible sewer service area far beyond what urban demand could justify (beyond the current MUSA Line) and they were concerned about premature development of the area. The Metropolitan Council felt that Eden Prairie and Chanhassen should contractually agree not to exceed their adopted MUSA Lines prior to the year 2000. The Metropolitan Council also felt that Eden Prairie's Comprehensive Guide Plan was not clear as to what year MUSA Line we had adopted, so they asked us to clarify it. The Staff has now clearly labeled the MUSA Line as a year 2000 line on the Comprehensive Guide Plan graphic and gone through the text of the Comprehensive Guide Plan and made revisions which add further clarification. In addition, we have changed text which refers to a five-acre lot size in the Rural Area to reflect ten- acre minimums to coincide with our own Zoning Code (changed in 1982) and the Metropolitan Council Development Framework. The location of the MUSA Line has not change. We also have included a chart showing population and sewage estimates for the future. Our estimates are slightly higher than the Metropolitan Council's, and we provide an explanation we hope they will accept. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the changes as presented and forward their recommendation to the City Council. Staff would then submit these changes to the Metropolitan Council and other affected governmental agencies and request that they review it as a minor amendment (a ten-day process versus a 120-day process). . , : 1 .‘ •• 7 i ; —I- . -• 1 I • „I ...—•-..„--------.)! J • t, -.,.: -;/‘ elk, 42:.!----T) , t -'•: ---.,7-; 1 \•1‘ ' _le ! i --r. \ . ii7J ....... . . 24_1 1 •ri ••,. . ,..d.—...„.,........._ _. .. .„ :,.....,....j_... .,. i _ _ei.:......:,•1. . . BL-2 \ ' . • ,'- , ___-•....__I :I t.. . ::..,,,,.‘,f ..--z../ // ..,-- • . \ !......,,1,1 4 -, i rt.....""I-'..*‘`..;:c4.t. 1 ' . I • ' .....,-- ." , 'r 71 i r 7 • . ..'A r;Ii-..r.--- \ton-.',. i( (). ___ 4.,t..,1 .... -; _,-....• iii. . 1 . ... . .. . .1/4\. . F__F--- ; ti.::: .• • . 3:.• ft ....; •-._i..1,.. ( -tr"•'" .----.. .,,r, ; 11,-1,."-v, \-,•2\ --,Li- 4.4 4 11*: '4'...i:i4.. ; 1 4''4 .4-•.' !%-f.l. i ---..::-- .t. ,...t.,•- ..:i....1.1,- • .,\:-_-.\,,-,. .) is• i -:- ....._: -- - • ..,.... -,.. ..;. A'''. T.H.e., 7 _.:4•:izit,-:-'i A.- ..17(.007,...,1 :11.,-f:11,1. 711_, \.1.-. -i•''' r! ---- ---- [ - - ..„-- :e_ • i7r,....._ ...0. • ::„.., -.:. -- -— . . -tv 3.„.• ....- ;.....: :11, r-, „ -- _._.. •,.... -4-- 1 I 1, -^1.—.• '; I 1,.1 ,, ., "..t, -..,. ,) :7 _,::.... c)j .,.....• . ‘..—-- .:,...-;:_i,-..4 I 4:: ''.\4-- fc"--. , 1- 7.7-',---;.•-•. if-- '-'1 ' —-11••1—, ' 4 . ,,,......, z:_zzi5-,,_.,, v,,,-.‘,....:,:.•_, NNM -2 I ',/ ,.-z•._••••-...',..-:,.._. r---- .1 1 I S. •_.-.. :----1- ' 11;01.?..-1.04 . 7- ' ,., ' .._-_,:•..-.,.---.-- -....?_,- -'er - :-/ 1 1 : 11_.1 vl3_;_,..04..‘,.... ., r___, ..,,,__.7.52:.,,, a...... ..m:ri_,,??..-........_,_ti.,..Ltiii7.:.:', :• ' • -nate..au- i ....... ' r, _._:f.(411,111'.'V f - I ------4 ... -,ir, a .......• r ,eri - , I I —71:17: , %,...-,,,,, . . s -g_ - • • i ! , ' . --• r.til.-- . i s s • ;71: -/ . %-elc.,r..m...,.._. -,L. •-....., L 14'4"N -. r•;..... -.- .',..., • - '444...... , * / 4...`"a `,,": '.', ..(•:- ...• . . 464 I. U.1 • . S...Z.V. I i y; . *--;•• 4-7; ;,.. • ;-f)....1-,' 1 L‘,......=I,,'""-',/''.L. .,.,„,,,,",7 .!...-7 . g / •. •7 • 44.1,.... ...: -7., ?7,.--,-,-. -.--'7.7,1..'4.!1.7."-.--';1:4-".,77.-; • '"-IA- 1 01411111,10iiIMII i '.. .. C ...' i ......Sos0 . 1 ,,,,,„ '''''.. 1' l k„....i,,,,f1, i."`. )..... jfi aril/ I ,•-: a., '--7 C ,.' •-'-- -- • - 1•' ''''''-;- ---- "2 nZ111 i ....1.` - 1 ..'t,•:. C•1‘.1 0" %'1 ..., 1.-)-t \c : .."''''-'' ''--4 ":3''fii. ilf/1--''''.-'-' t-, - - 3 I • li I •L`.• ..-. :.:•l',. I 4., __... ; 1 _ c-J.1,,,..... 1 I I''77 .."e'l .''.' /..1 t 7...$1.1.: • . ..... ; •'" .-11,1 -- • 61, •••,, ',"=:r;n:14L.'.. 7-.-1,,<., i 1 , --: r ... 4,/-7 ,,1 , . `•:".1-1 r ..... ----..— 's..„ / I • ) 1 ' !4,41,,.../ ! . ,___:;,.,•._:....i.1F--',.• • _ . • -Id • ......,.;. =:.!!!... 1 I in""t ta u s tit,k ....,4 .1 ..... , ..• 1/..4.... 0,...,.... ,... , ..../..) - , .... ......„/...... .s • --, • !7....."--z14......... ,,..- "Th • I i . '"t‘'4 " "'41;;....: . , • --• ....-......."-='-.......--- --- ''...-__.-- \ 1 . .. c :.1.--Fi.:-..i-.1-=_NE,j1.117:-`7•C'2-7_r_LL'RPLANP0?0 S ED,..XPANSION .EXH'BIT E_ _ _4 1.11,,,. • . . . . - ...... - - .. .. . .. _ ..0•40POSED'MUNN SEW1,4 • ( . FIG.5.10 :---- 1 Both Eden Prairie's projections and the Metropolitan Council projections are shown for planning purposes. Population projection, 15 years in the future, without some degree of error, is difficult. The Metropolitan Council requires that communities adopt their population estimates. Because these estimates are translated into finite sewer allocations, it will be important to update population projects every year so that requests for changes in sewer allocation can be made and substantiated, if Metropolitan Council population estimates prove to be too low. In 1980, the Metropolitan Council estimated Eden Prairie's 1990 population to be 23,500. Since 1980, the Metropolitan Council has changed this estimate three times, from 23,500 to 25,000 to 27,000, and to the latest estimate of 32,000. The year 2000 forecast has been modified from 33,000 to 43,000. We expect the forecasting flexibility to continue, if actual population differs from forecast. The problem with accepting the disparity between the two population estimates is best illustrated by looking back to 1980, when Eden Prairie accepted the Metropolitan Council's 1990 sewer "estimate" of 2.39 million gallons of sewerage per day (MGD). The word "estimate" was used in 1980, and the idea that it could be changed was the basis upon which Eden Prairie accepted 2.39 MGD, rather than our estimate of 4.37 MGD. The concept has changed somewhat since 1980 and the sewage flow estimates are now called "allocations." The Metropolitan Council utilized their "estimates" for sewer facility planning. Since their population estimates seem to be at least 9,000 people low, it is not surprising that the 1984 "measured average daily flow" for Eden Prairie was 2.45 MGD, as compared to their 1990 estimate of 2.39 MGD. The problem, then, is that the Blue Lake Treatment Plant has not been expanded to account for the actual population growth. Since no "freeboard" was built into the population estimates, our area is now "nearing sewer capacity" for 1990, five years early. In order to prevent this problem of being caught short on capital improvements, we feel that one, or all, of the following is necessary: 1. Project a population range, not just a finite number. 2. Update population projections in a timely enough fashion to provide the most accurate number just prior to major capital improvement expansions. 3. Do not allow population estimates to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The idea of sewer allocations being based upon population estimates, and subsequently enforcing those estimates with moratoriums, is bad planning. Where is the growth going to occur, how can we best plan for it, and if we guessed wrong, how can we correct our development framework to accommodate growth without artificially obstructing it? The Metropolitan Council states in their Development Investment Framework that they do not intend to force growth in a direction different than market conditions dictate. 4. Look at areas that are at urban service capacity and ask, were our population estimates wrong, is this why we are out of capacity? Being out of service capacity could very well be an indicator of fast growing areas where capacities should be increased. Instead of a signal to slow growth, it should be a signal to increase capacities. 5. Build some play into the capital improvement plans for sewer. Improvements must be able to be moved up, or back, in time as needs dictate. 6. Build flexibility into sewer plant expansions so that their capacities may _. 1 be increased incrementally above sewer flow projections without major improvements. 7. Eden Prairie should continue to update the Metropolitan Council on local conditions that would affect Council population estimates. 8. Provide for additional sewer plant improvements, as necessary, to prevent obstructions to growth. Growth in this area is consistent with the Metropolitan Council's policy of supporting free-standing industrial and commercial areas. 9. The priority system philosophy needs further study to assure that we do not reach a "those who have get, those who have not, get not" situation. The area financial resources should be projected against area needs to assure that the first priority area does not take all of the area's resources. d. 0 0 i 3 0 O, O CVtb•, .01, 0InO >•.O^ Q 1,- O N Q tO 1s.CO Cr,4•1 Q O U. N N (••) R, R, MI M R, Q If] I b iap0 0 N L v li O E 3 0 n 0 u, 0 U O VI E 0 Co.-. CO CO CT Cr,, O, VI CC I+J —C..)Lt.I 0 0 0 0 0 .ti .-. I- 4 3 I— V) 4 3 -0 01 0 CC... Z y.�i Ln M 1� 3 to .N-. 0 k0 CO 0 L. 0 a, — r, v g rn H 0=U.. ti NI N CV CM Cs: M 4 0_ a # 0_ C C u,C 0 n) W )J C J W_ 0 r l 0 0 0 O pO Op a.+ co w' O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C I-Ill E 0 R U, ,O I... 0 W 0 N N N N N N M V) 0 Z C _O I— inn3 I..) C '� I,w 0 0 Z 0 I. ita,( 0 9 8 o 0,O L'- 0 O O 00 0 v opo 0u1 •^ c) 0 3 C3. 0 a N r, 0 • C W G) O R, to I4 O, w CV(•1 R,tO i 0 CC Nd N N N N 4.1 M M Q cp O.0 W W C C N a)mi C vl 4J C I- O �O O. v w aa., >10 I. 0 N v , a+ C. L C 0-CC 3 C co - 1.0 CI 01 O t� V n ket Q) 0C, In O, M co NI .-, VI C? I, n n co co CT .y C)G) i t. L cf i.f, 0 1" W O, .O CO CO CO CO CO CO a an 0 y)N ,- in. al .Wr .-i Y ti v.. N # # 1 VI 1.1 N O O •, _ A W 01= O VI +'. C E Cr 41 C = cm:+ 0 c E ,, U'- 0 04- m•, Q c O C W C aJ • 0 y V '0 0 10 k C)CD ..V. Q1.13 1 •o C N C `= O N N C L.•N 0 • q C a+W- C-.1 0) C \ G M-C C. .0. .a) 6! A O N 4)•. Iv 0 E 0).- .0 •-- a c a1 >. L ^J•.- L 10� u O P. u a+� G=Q 10 u C u 1p•L' N C C E==.0 ' N - O N C) m c 1- o= L vOa= vo ^ Gc - In 4- �a C) > . u >C 0 0 C 4- C C O Cr 6) d C 1p 61 C C y -•O (O 10 N C 0 4. .... C 10•- '" C' • G fa .0I.3 C U ....> N•r- m .0 4- N V. C 61 U. 6) G.0 Y L 0 I N C (V • N >,M) R) d V1 (0 O U C ( I O V-1 C = Q 441 6) 0) .1_1 di CD L•-. 61 6)CY L C U0 0. i•- 1.> ,- 4-. L C in.0 E >0) N L CT L N C C U/44..1,SL .0 b d. Q•.- 3 0. C 0.) (0 3(- • • (0 Q i I (0 0) (0 U t Q) C O 4)w 3 0) O.10 N O a 1 6) I-U an 1. .0•.^ • N Us 6!= (0 O.-.0 .0 L _• 6) • L W JC Q L 1 Usin.0 6) I I � U C/r♦J 0)Y C C 0 6)+-) L Z 3 iA W tAf Q >g 3 C )0- M = -> .- C 1-4- U C u M. I i 0) Q W.•4 L> (..1 +-)6).- 10.- 10 6) 10 N L >44-^a N IU♦V W>I J C Jr, >.. L•^. 6) C C•r-10 C 0.17 .0 0 C 01 1 0) C N C J-1 C 6).d. VI 01 N C C L 4-, 3 10 C onN 6)4,4- MI.“)SC•> Si. an ¢U in IL 4.^L C 3 X C = (0 3 61^- C 6)1-1 4- 6) 1 Si.W SL SL 1 W = (U L•4- C 0 N 10 O C 6) L O.- J) .0 1 6) D >i U 0)'L VI .1- LI y (0 6) C Y N••-.- O. L .0 Q C.6:U)61 44) ...0 W > 6) b 4.) C in V1 0)(0 --I(0 O E 6)a) a a I •4. 1 1 •rt >a)6)_ (X I I t Cr -3._C 01 L 3 C.N.- 01 w4 C W.4- CC t 1-) Li.) p.) -J 4)Y U 0 4-1C • 3C E 10•.- -. (0+V 10 07•m W 4-4-,tV) 6) C 0 _ 1 Q L C•.-4-1 0) (0 14.S w S X 444 V)O J 1 0. D G.••.L N > ^ >I • 10 X•.- > M.41) ; Si. 1 9 4- I� O >_ .6 L (34, L 10. V)1••.-+ -'- VI 10 C C 10 4)) I 1 77 411 1 -1.41 0 C 0 1 ♦1 L C Q 16 C 6) • (0•-- E 3 c 61 N 1 9..VQ L 1.... CU+41 I ♦-) • L 6)N 6) 0)= (0 10 N 3.0•- Sz A X C(0 6) V) 0 et:. 0) 0/VI 0- N .0 C i (0 N • ^ CCCC[[[ 1 1 '10 1 9 =G C W Er=-Cf • 6) C • L^Z 0) 3 C.0 14. .0 41) I.•SL C > I M1 i) = C L 10.-O•.- C a).0 O a) 6i 1 eh 6)11. 6)iY Y N • O)11 I 6) • 0) Ga.-O 10 0)•.-' .1-1 L C 6) (0•w rt SC I Cl)10...) 1- t C) A .0 F C 61 L•-O i t (0 3•-4- 0••- S S S 0).4. 0, .0.0 3 C) Ir.0.0 I----W L 3 3(Si d Y 1.) V 3 0 C J 1+ N ; 01.J)A 1-a) 0 U) CO O ••• N M • 1 C VI • Cl) L So- 0•^ E a)0 _ > . IA > CO > 3 >^O N on vs 0 • 0 V - U 0)C a+ C Co. V'C L ..- L 0• ._ .1•.- -. C .. a+.- G0 u IP •-•- •- N O 6! a+ .0 4 QI a+ .0 C 7 0 C 3 a 0 0•0 0 m N 0 C >O O C S. G.=4- .O 4.. L S. O C"..-C"..- 0 0+ N u -1 C. > 0 >N .L N U a. 0 q•.- 10 O C O T c� u >0 G 21 u••- O) a+ 4 o c= •(0 - c >C 0 > C.�moot -.> u co•-... - u= 44 1.2 CI C...-1 u a) C.c+-, IO J ! 1 (.7 Q 1 1 Replaces pace 4-9 • 1978 Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan Update DRAFT Plan Summary 10/30/78 Introduction Planning is a process, continuous, changing, adapting and hopefully progressive. This plan is based upon the past with appropriate changes made to make it applicable to the present and near future. Purpose The 1978 Guide Plan•is intended to Review the 1968 plan and policies in light of historical record and current circumstances Incorporate all appropriate sector and special area (MCA) planning studies and various policy statements into one document; Generate broad community participation; Recognize metropolitan guidelines.; Recommend new policies, organizations, rules and procedures for plan implementation. Summary of Goals & Objectives (Chapter 4) A. Plan for a saturated development population of between 80,000 - 100,000. *Designate Urban, Transitional and Rural development areas. Residential Loy Density area 1 to 3.5 units per net acre. *Rural area development density 1 unit to 5 10 acres. B. Maintain Council-Manager government with effective, efficient ad:i:inistration. Provide additional space and facilities fcr sta1 . *Adopt and adhere to strict schedules for considering develop- ment proposals. *Restructure membership and procedures of advisory commissions. C. Maintain a stable, conservative fiscal base Seek out all grants. *Establish and promote a City Foundation Encourage and support business and industry. D. Hold property taxes at current levels. Derive additional income from fees and charges. E. *Encourage and support grc;rth and development - tarnet 650 REC'S per year. Expediate revenue and permit process. *Ccn:piete "Related Actions EA;l" for Guide Plan proposals. F. Support and indicate all kinds of land uses. *Permit Manufactured housing F ti Replaces page 1 of chapter 5 5a. LAND USE . The proposed generalized land use for Eden Prairie is illustrated in Figure 5-1. The projected acreage .of each land use are presented in Table 5-1. TABLE 5-1 ESTIMATED LAND USE ACREAGE - 1940 Land Use Urban (Acres) Rural (Acres Total (Acres) S of City Rural (RU) - 1,541 1,541 6.7 Residential- -low density (RL) 5,790 47 5,837 25.4 -medium density (RH) 1,082 - 1,082 4.7 -high density (RH) 275 - 275 1.2 Commercial 1,053 - 1,058 4.6 . Industrial 1,369 - 1,369 6.0 Office 607 - 607 2.6 Public 3,464 2,225 6,239 27.3 Institutional 692 - 692 3.0 Quasi-Public 349 - Lakes 898 349 i.5 7T 6 l,G14 7.0 R.O.W.'s 1,971 343 2.314 10.0 17,555 5,472 23,027 100": If Eden Prairie develops consistent with the development plan issustrated in Figure 5-1, the resultant population will range from roughly 80,000 to 120,000. Table 5-2 indi- cates the methodology and assumptions used in deriving this projected population range. TABLE 5-2 PROJECTED POPULATION - 2025 Land Use Persons/Household x Units/Acre = Persons/Acre RU 4 0 - 8:2 0.1 0 - ,6 ,4 RL 3.5 2 - 3.5 7 - 12.25 RM.1 3 3.5 - 10 10.5 - 30 RF1.2 2 10 - 15 20 - 30 RH 2 24 - 40 48 - SO II of Acre; x Per7on4/Aire - Poo;ilation RU 1,541 0 - -8 .4 = 0 _ h.233 616 RL 5.837 7 - 12.25 = 40.260 - 71.503 RPt 1 1,032 10.5-30 = 10,236 - 30.0E0 `MI 2 50 20 RH 275 48 - ,0 = 13..m - 22.000 fUT;.li-i)i'UL'.TIC:1 65,,;`}6 -lrr-.-i-.Ri 126,579 .r%` i5 a density d^sior.acion frnant only .o , e ,}"naLicns and :color,; ul _`.e City and is Ral to exi::ian P.U.O.of intenazt to to used in '`^ :tur^ • Replaces page 5-3 As seen in Table 5-2, low density residential development alone accounts for a population of between 40,000 and 71,000, about two-thirds of the entire projected residential population. If all the residential land within the MUSA line (RL, RMl & 2, Ril) were developed in a low density fashion, the population would range from about 50,000 to 88,000. These population projections are all based on the projected land use in Eden Prairie in the year 2025. Shorter term projections by 1) the Metropolitan Council and 2) by utilizing the 10% growth model described in Section 2.f., yield population figures of 30,500 and 36,977, respectively in 1990. On the basis of these projections, Eden Prairie can expect an average influx of people ranging from roughly 1,350 to 1,800 persons per year through 1990. These figures reflect a policy of discouraging development in the rural service area prior to 1998 2000 on less than b 10 acre lots. Growth pressures are expected to increase after 1990, thus the immigration will increase. Figure 5-2 indicates the location of the MUSA/line, which has been changed slightly to reflect development that is presently beyond the original MUSA line recommended by the Metropolitan Council. Also indicated are transitional areas; those areas within the urban service area that are not yet served by sewer facilities. Transitional areas will have development policies that differ from urban and rural areas (see Section 6). Table 5-3 indicates the projected employment in Eden Prairie at maturity based upon the land uses envisioned in the general development plan. Table 5-3 PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT — Land Use Jobs/Acrel Acres Jobs Commercial 9 1,058 = 9,522 Lndustrial 9 1,369 = 12,321 Office 51 607* = 30.957 Total Employment = 52,300 *Office land use was derived by assuming that: -12.5% of commercial/office use is office, the remainder commercial. -25% of industrial/office use is office, the remainder industrial. lOraft Environmental impact Statc:aent for the New ....r Town of Jonathan. October, 1977. Replaces page 5-4 • LLB..ni If Eden Prairie develops consistent with genreal develooment plan (Figure 5-1), the number and type of dwelling units will be as follows: TABLE 5-9 • PROJECTED HOUSING UNITS - 2025 Land Use Units/Acre No. of Acres No, of Units X of all RURAL 9---8-2-wfa 1,541 1/10 0 - 308 0% - 1% Residential * -low density 2 - 3.5 u/a 5,837 -med. densityl 3.5 - 1011,674 - 10,320 52% - 24% ** -med. density2 10 - 15 1,032 3,612 - 7505,320 22% - 2%'S -high density 24 - a0 50 600 - 110% - 2" 275 6,600 - i1,000 40", - 2E`1 TOTAL UNITS 22,386 - 42,499 The residential land uses stated above can be translated into housing types.in the following number: Residential - low density (RI) -single family, detached homes and duplexes (lot size =13,5009 sq. ft. or larger; 20,000 sq. ft. or larcer duplex. Residential - medium density (PM) -single family, detached homes (lot size - 10,000 sn. ft.) and larger under the P.U.D. when provision of low, mod- erate, or modest cost housing is the goal -duplexes -townhouses -low density condominiums and apartments (approximately 6 to 10 units per acre) Residential - high density (RH) -medium to high density condominiums and apartments (approximately 24 to 40 units per acre) Residential - rural (RU) -single family, detached homes (lot size = 5 10 acres or more) The housing unit projections indicated above represent projec- tions through the year 2025. More detailed, short range projections (through 1990) have been prepared by the City Planning Department. These figures, and their accompanying assumptions, are indicated in Table 5-10. * 2 Untt/acre single family-free standinn max.-higher density reserved for duplex mixing with single family free standing area. 7 ** *•!ecium density` is a cateacry shich reflects land wnicb is currently zoned or PU.J.D. aooroyea for this density ranee; the f designation is not meant to be used for future oarcels. • Replaces page 5-18 12. Ailew-pr'eiitn i'Rdt'}^'p9 a I.tiny'0'P 2'.'S'd t r eb'iif tiTi'tttt3trt'QR- sewered-lets-in-transition-areas;-wit+re-resubd+454 n plan;-rintii-sneh-iand-is-sabdivided-{tt rich time- sewer-and-es ter-mould-be-resaired:-) 10 13. Allow plattingof 5 acre unsewered lots in the rural area, with a resubdivision plan, and served by a hard surface public street, (may be a rural section) Further Recommendations: 1. The Guide Plan should be reviewed and updated periodi- cally as development conditions change in order to main- tain accuracy and relevance. 2. Recommendations of the Joint Airport Zoning Board should be reviewed by the City Council and incorporated in the zoning ordinance. (Areas affected by this Board are illustrated in Comprehensive Guide Plan.) 3. Rezone the following inconsistently zoned property in one coordinated process upon adoption and approval of the 1977 Comprehensive Plan: a. Existing I-Gen zone north of M &St. L RR betweem Co. Rd. 4 ano Lake Riley to Rural. b. Existing I-Gen zone south of M & St. L RR between Co. Rd. 4 and Lake Riley to Rural until highway right-of-way negotiations are completed. c. Existing I-Gen zone north of M & St. L RR between T.H. 5 and Valley View Road to Rural. d. Existing I-Gen zone south of Milwaukee RR between , Chanhassen ano Round Lake and Rural . e. Existing C-Reo zone east of U.S. 212/169 between Valley View Road and dine Mile Creek to Rural. f. Existing I-Gen in the northeast corner of the intersection of T.N. 5 and Co. Rd. 4 to Rural. Replaces page 6-4 ;;ITY OFFICES/8950 EOEN PRAIRIE ROAD!EOEN PRAIRIE.MN 55344-2499/TELEPHONE i6I21937-2252 tt.�.vt`.rA' February 13, 1986 Ms. Pat Pahl, Planner Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Dear Ms. Pahl: We are herein transmitting an amendment to our Comprehensive Guide Plan, which includes the designation of our MUSA Line as a Year 2000 Line, adoption of a sewer allocation flow of 4.93 million gallons per day for the year 20D0, and changes in the text of our Comprehensive Guide Plan to clearly indicate a ten-acre Rural lot size minimum to bring our Comprehensive Guide Plan into conformance with our existing Zoning Code. { The Eden Prairie Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this amendment on February 10, 1986. Input received by affected property owners pointed out that there is a portion of land immediately west of our MUSA Line and south of the Chanhassen "notch" consisting of approximately 212 acres (see enclosed map), which the proposed Lake Ann Interceptor will cross. The property owners are aware that being outside of our MUSA Line would preclude them from connecting to this sewer interceptor before the year 2000. The property owners felt that transversing their land with an interceptor sewer for a distance of approximately 3/4 of a mile, without allowing them access privileges to the sewer, was unreasonable. The Eden Prairie Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment as published. In addition, the Planning Commission directed City Staff to include a request to the Metropolitan Council for enlargement of the Eden Prairie Urban Service Area to encompass land through which the proposed interceptor would cross. We realize that adding land to the Urban Service Area cannot be justified on the basis of urban land demand and we do not wish to suggest a land swap. However, we feel that it may be in the best interest of all of the agencies involved to consider this addition at this time, or in the near future, as a way of expediting easement acquisition for a considerable length of interceptor pipe. Although we are asking you to consider this addition to the Urban Service Area, we request that, should you feel uncomfortable reviewing it within the ten-day process, you either eliminate it from consideration at this time, or consider it under the full 120-day review process, separate from the other Comprehensive Guide Plan amendments for Ms. Pahl -2- February 13, 1986 clarification purposes discussed above. In addition to submitting this Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, to the Metropolitan Council, we have also transmitted copies to the following agencies: Scott County, Carver County, Hennepin County, City of Chanhassen, City of Chaska, Eden Prairie School District #272, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and Hennepin County Highway Department. We are hopeful that this Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment request cart be considered within the ten-day review process, as the amendment is consistent with requests made of us to provide this Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment by Metropolitan Council Staff in connection with the sewer agreement we anticipate entering into for the Lake Ann Interceptor in March, 1986. Please keep us posted on your review progress, and contact us immediately if you have any questions, or concerns. We hope to be able to take this to our City Council at their March 4, 1986, meeting, immediately prior to consumating the sewer interceptor agreement. Sincerely, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Chris Enger 10 Director of Planning Enclosures } METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minn. 55101 INFORMATION SUBMISSION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS This worksheet must be filled out and submitted to the Metropolitan Council with a copy of each proposed comprehensive plan amendment. The purpose of. this worksheet is to summarize the proposed change so that the Metropolitan Council will have enough information about contemplated plan amendment; to determine whether the Council has an interest in reviewing the amendment in more detail. Please be as specific as possible; attach additional explanatory materials if necessary. I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Sponsoring governmen tal unit CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • • Name of local contact person CHRIS ENGER, PLANNING DIRECTOR Address8450 FDFN PRAIRIF ROAD.EDEN PRAIRIEJIN. 55344 Telephone f;17-q 7_72f2 B. Attach a copy of the proposed amendment, including a map snowing the location of the proposed change, the current plan map, and the proposed plan map. Indicate which section(s) of the original plan is (are) being amended. C. What is the official local status of the proposed amendment? (Check one or more as appropriate.) XX Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on 2-10-86 • Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review, on • -- Considered but not approved by governing body on Other D. Summarize the reasons for the proposed amendment. For purposes of clarification of designation of timing of MUSA Line as Year 2000 MUSA Line. with attendant text changes; agreement to 4.93 mgd sewer allocation for Year 2000 E. Provide a list of all local units and all jurisdictions affected by the change (school districts, watershed districts, etc. ) that have been sent copies of this worksheet and plan amendment and (- the dates copies were sent to them. SEE ATTACHED LIST i II. LAND USE THERE ARE NO CHANGES PROPOSED TO THOSE SHOWN ON OUR LAND USE PLAN ATTACHED. A. Describe the following, as appropriate: o Size of area in acres o Proposed type(s) of land use . o Number of residential dwelling units o Proposed density o Proposed square footage of commercial, industrial, or public buildings B. Population, Household and Employment Forecasts Would you expect the proposed amendment to result in changes to the population, household or employment forecasts for 1990, or for the five-year stages contained in the original plan, for land parcels affected by the change? XX No/Not applicable. Yes/Not sure. If yes or not sure, show below the expected changes: Forecast Based on Forecast Based„on Previous Plan Plan Amendment Year Pop. Hsg. Empl. Pop. Hsg. Empl. 1990 Interim S tages • 19 19 • C. Changes to Timing and Staging of Urban Service Area • Will the proposed amendment result in changes to the boundaries of the urban service area or to the timing and staging of development or of the urban service area? XX No/Not applicable. Yes. Be sure Section I contains a map of these changes, measurements of the land area involved, and designation of new timing and staging. • • ii D. Housing Will this change have an effect on the community's ability or intent to achieve the long-term goals for low- and moderate-income and modest-cost housing opportunities contained in the original plan? XX No/Not appli cable. Yes. Describe effect III. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM A. Official Controls Will the proposed amendment require a change to zoning, subdivision, or on-site sewer ordinances? XX No. Yes. Please describe. B. Capital Improvement Program Will the proposed amendment require a change to the CIP? XX No. Yes. Please describe. • IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (Optional) You may add comments stating your conclusions about the effects of the proposed amendment on metropolitan plans. Check the statements that apply. • A metropolitan system is potentially affected by the proposed amendment but the proposed change is minor or • inconsequential. A review period of less than 90 days is appropriate. A metropolitan system is potentially affected by the proposed amendment, and a 90-day review should take place. No metropolitan system is potentially affected by the proposed amendment. XX No metropolitan system is potentially affected by the proposed amendment and waiver of. Council comment and reviewis recommended. Other: 03.05.dl EP5642 a CITY OF aUEY PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING I ''OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Eden Prairie Planning Commission will meet in the School Board :eting Room, 3100 School Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, February 10, 1986, and will during said meeting conduct a public hearing for the purpose of considering an amendment to the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan. The amendment proposed is the designation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (M.U.S.A.) Line, currently in force in south and southwest Eden Prairie, as a year 2000 M.U.S.A. Line. Land which is zoned Rural, or which is outside of the year 2000 M.U.S.A. Line, shall be limited to a density of no more than one unit per ten acres in conformance with City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.10, Subdivision 2, C. and D. In addition, the proposal is for the adoption of 4.93 million gallons of sewage per day as the maximum flow expected from the community until the year 2000. (SEE MAP FOLLOWING) All comments, suggestions, and/or inquiries should be submitted in advance of the meeting, or at the meeting itself. A copy of the proposed amendment is on file at the City Hall and may be inspected between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Published in the Eden Prairie News on January 29, 1986. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 V fa. A, t vT .,: 1,i1-e'^_.w 1 Z (syf".� aF , : '.1—: t i 45'." `.. 4 �,I_ r 7;1 .a., ... 11,J j�" in. 7v*ter'y -- I . t11 ..4 I D ` "' Q1``Y 1 w, ,/,� ;w...- 41...s, iff-1 \....--.�----'''.-tom- - +� - .7„ ,.I•_v. fr '� 1/'1 ,-.?,, '� E •-_l j �I '�i� -}y(�T�" 'Yly'��-.,,r `s''r �\ �,-' E % 1 ty �r q, J as qp,,, •per !e M.U.S.A +..:' ,,,L '�.'—+.2`,y` -�'° _ F /1:4‘ „pi y r 1 .(p J u ill . qv- l� . IC 1 �� �.� fp,-., ��I4� h_ 14 /I ,. `, gg R P 8 g 8 \'`` < I 5 i r ( ( William H. Marshall 17591 Pioneer Trail Eden Prairie, MN 55344 February 7, 1986 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie City Council 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Official Publication 4191 Amendment to the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Cuide Plan Board and Council Members: I wish to go on record as strongly opposing the changes in the Comprehensive Guide Plan changing the current 1990 ?I.U.S.A. Line, currently in force in south and southwest Eden Prairie, to a year 2000 M.U.S.A. line, • and changing the density to 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. In a community in transition from rural to urban, such as Eden ?rairie, there are two factors in real estate valuation that must. be considered. 1.) It'.s agricultural value. 2.) It's transitional value. Agricultural value speaks for itself in that the value of the income stream that can he derived from a variety of crops is easily determined. The transitional value is another matter. The additional value added by transitional value gives future highest and best use which in this case exceeds the agricultural value greatly. Some of the components of transitional value are: 1.) Market conditions. 2.) Interest rates. 3.) Access to utilities. 4.) Timing of avail..bility of utilities. 5.) Zoning-present and future. 6.) Lot size requirements, etc. My main objection of your proposed amendments are hased on item 4, Timing of availability of utilities. Even though, at this time, I am not interested in soiling or developing the property I own, I feel I must point out that Your proposed actions providing access to sewer and water inside the sI.tt,S..A. line crestly enhances values, whereas the 10 years you are proposing to add to the 1990 W,it.S.A. line greatly decreases values outside the line. 6 c c If ff What disturbs me the most is that circumstantial evidence would y,. indicate intent on the part of various departments in Eden Prairie for future acquisitions of land outside the M.U.S.A. boundries. Specifically, I am referring to the "Leapfrog" M.U.S.A. line on the West boundry that goes directly around the land being contemplated for park acquisition. The M.U.S.A. line drops due South to the Southwest shore of Lake Riley at the Chanhassen city limits. What better way to keep values depressed for future acquisition: Further, in the October 30, 1985 issue of Eden Prairie News I was very surprised to read that the "City Staff" has been looking for future sites for ballfields, one of which was 95 acres of apple orchard South of County Road 1 and East of Dell Road which I own. Even though they decided on another site for the ballfields, I feel strongly that this indicates future intent. In conclusion: If the City of Eden Prairie does in fact pass the amendment moving the M.U.S.A. Line to the year 2000, and in the next 14 years uses it's powers of eminent domain to acquire my property at the severely diminished value resulting from said change, I will consider it an arbitrary self serving abuse of power and initiate ap propriate actions as I deem necessary to protect my interests. Sincerely, • / r / William H. Marshall WHM/ms • / 0 !, SPENCER G.KLUEGEL LAW FIRM WOODHILL PLAZA ATTORNEYS 14525 HWY.7 SPENCER G.IIUEGEL 612-935.0717 MINNEI'ONKA.MN 55345 DIANE M.CARLSON 612-935 6730 VIRGINIA A.ZELLER 612.935.5427 LEGAL ASSISTANT SMARON NELSON 612.935-0717 February 19, 1986 Chris Enger City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Enger: Thank you for your kind attention and concern regarding questions which my clients had on Monday, February 10th regarding the MUSA line and the sanitary sewer interceptor line which are presently under consideration. I was happy to see that you are attempting to put into your agreement with the Metropolitan Council several provisions which would keep the City of Eden Prairie from being locked into the year 2000 in the event that it is apparent that further development is appropriate in the Western part of the City. As I understood the resolution passed that night, it also included consideration being given to persons over whose land the new sewer line passes for the purposes of their using that line. If you have a copy of that resolution, I would appreciate a copy of it being forwarded to me. I would also appreciate being advised regarding your progress on the sewer line agreement. Thank you very much for your time. Very truly yours, Diane M. Carlson DMC/sz cc: Ken Bollig t 1 • • Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie City Council 8950 Eden Prairie Rd. Eden Prairie, Mn. 5.5344 To the Board and Council Members: I wish to go on record as opposing an amendment to the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan, to change the M.U.S.A. line from the year 1990 anti extend. it to the year 2000. In making this change, property values outside the M.U.S.A. line will be lowered. MI property is just ou .of the line and borders on the west side of the line. At this time some of` wi my property is being considered to be acquired by the City of Eden Prairie for expansion of the Riley Lake Park. If the City (by changing the present M.U.S.A. line date) plans to devalue my property for the next I4 years, and in that time intends to acquire some of the land at the lower value, I an totally opposed to their plan. I feel it is 1 a definite conflict of interest by the City of Eden Prairie. If this change is approved, I feel that I must commence actions to protect my interests. Yours truly, C3-7.9,f.� _�✓ -9/�, GE:4,, / At February 8, 1986 5.29 33,,tar. 'ri - Metropolitan Council tr F fr. t+ 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets ,Y St.Paul,Minnesota 55101 /1_1\ Telephone(612)291-6359 February 14, 1986 Mr. Carl Jullie City Manager tt)SS City of Eden Prairie CEZ � '� 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: Sewer Facility Agreements Dear Mr. Jullie: Enclosed please find three copies of the Sewer Facility Agreement and a copy of the Council Resolution approving the Agreement. The Agreement is identical to the draft dated January 24th, except that the "draft" designation has been removed. Upon completion of your public hearing process on March 4th, please have all three Agreements executed and delivered to the Council so that the Council and the MWCC can execute the Agreement on March 5th. We will then return a fully-executed original to you. ° Verytruly y yours, Peter H. Bachman Assistant Counsel PHB/la enc: cc: Marcel Jouseau, Metropolitan Council Pat Pahl, Metropolitan Council Bill Blain, Metropolitan Waste Control Richard Rosow, Lang, Pauly& Gregerson, Ltd. Dick Nowlin, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. pp • An Equal O000rtunrtv Emoiover METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building. St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-93 TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO ENTER AGREEMENT WITH CITIES OF CHANHASSEN AND EDEN PRAIRIE WHEREAS, Metropolitan Council Resolution No. 85-93, as amended by Metropolitan Council Resolution No. 85-11l, establishes a deadline of February 19, 1986, by which the Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission should enter an agreement with the cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie to provide terms and conditions for the joint use of the Lake Ann Interceptor; and WHEREAS, the cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie have requested additional time to hold necessary public hearings prior to entering the agreements; and WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen has represented that it can complete all necessary public hearings by March 3, 1986, and the City of Eden Prairie has represented that it can complete all necessary public hearings by March 4, 1986. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Metropolitan Council hereby amends Council Resolution No. 85-93 (as amended by Council Resolution No. 85-111) by striking the words "February 19. 1986" where they appear in clauses 4 (D) and 4 (E) thereof and inserting in their place the words "March 5, 1986." Adopted this day of , 1986. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By By Sandra S. Gardebring, Maurice K Dorton, Chair Secretary (• SEWER FACILITY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the METROPOLITAN COUNCIL (hereinafter "the Council"), the METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION (hereinafter "the Commission"), and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE (hereinafter "the City"). SECTION 1. RECITALS 1.1) Commission's Development Proq-am - The Council and Commission. following review and analysis, have included in the Commission's 1986-1990 Development Program plans for the construction of a gravity interceptor sewer along the Lake Ann - Red Rock Lake route as generally depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. to convey sewage from the Lake Virginia lift station to the Purgatory Creek interceptor. 1.2) The Facility - The decision to build the Lake Ann interceptor was in part based on representations by the City that if that portion of the. interceptor lying within the boundaries of the City (hereinafter "the Facility") would simultaneously serve as a Commission interceptor and a local trunk sewer for the City, the City would pay for a portion of the project costs of the Facility over and above its SAC charge cost contribution and the City would further agree to make necessary amendments to its comprehensive plan, comprehensive sewer plan and official controls to ensure the avoidance of premature growth or urbanization in accordance with Council policies. 1.3) Joint Use of Facility - The Council, the Commission and the City have agreed that the Facility can be designed and used simultaneously as a Commission interceptor sewer and a local trunk sewer for the City. 1.4) Council and Commission - Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.146. the Council has adopted a Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan for the collection. treatment, and disposal of sewage in the Metropolitan area. Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.511 authorizes the Commission to acquire. construct. equip. maintain and operate all interceptors and treatment works needed to implement the Council's Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan. 1.5) Lake Ann Interceptor, Eden Prairie Seament - The Council and Commission have determined that the Facility is necessary for and shall be • constructed pursuant to the Council's Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan and the Commission's 1988-1990 Development Program. This work is to be undertaken pursuant to the Commission's Project No. 82-53. - i i 1 • 1.6) City Sewer - The City has planned the construction of a trunk sewer along the general routs of the Facility. The City has determined that the joint use of a single sewer pips to bi constructed, owned, and operated by the Commission will satisfy certain sewer service needs of the City. The City • states and represents that it has conducted all proceedings necessary under law and ordinance so as to authorize it to participate in the cost of the construction of the Facility. • 1.7) Construction - The interceptor and trunk sewer can be constructed as a single pipe and the design of the Facility and its construction can best be undertaken by the Commission. . NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in the joint and separate exercise of each of their powers, and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained. hereby agree as follows: • •SECTION 2. FACILITY CONSTRUCTION AND CAPACITY • 2.1) plans and Specifications - The Commission has retained a consulting engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of the Facility. The plans and specifications for the Facility shall include adequate designed capacity to enable the City's use of the Facility as specified in this ' Agreement for trunk sewer purposes: as well as use of the Facility as a Commission interceptor. The design capacity for trunk satyr service as determined by the Commission, shall be adequate to reasonably replace the City's planned trunk sewer along the route of the Facility. Specifically, the Facility shall, at a miniamm. be designed with 4.9 million gallons per day UNDO") peak capacity for City trunk sewer use. The Commission agrees to allow the City to review and comment on the plans and specifications for the Facility so as to insure that adequate trunk sewer capacity Is provided. • Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement. the Commission shall be solely responsible for approving plans and specifications for the Facility. 2.2) Contract Administration - Except as hereinafter provided. the Facility construction contract shall be exclusively administered by the Commission, and the Commission agrees to cause the construction project to be completed in accordance with the design plans and the conforming construction contract. The Commission shall provide a resident engineer to supervise the performance of the work. but the City may inspect the materials for, and construction of, the Facility at any time. and may request the Commission to require the contractor to perform any part of the contract in accordance with its terms, and to enforce any provision of the contract necessary to obtain such performance. The Commission retains sole authority to determine whether contractor performance is consistent with the terms of the contract. - D 7 _ SECTION 3. ( PROJECT FINANCING 3.1) Project Costs - The City agrees to pay the Commission a total of one Million Five Hundred Sixty-eight Thousand Dollars (S1,588,000) at the time that construction of the Facility is completed as full payment of its monetary obligations under this Agreement. This sum shall be paid within thirty (30) days of presentment to the City of a Certificate of Final inspection for construction of the Facility signed by the contractor, Commission and consulting engineer. If for any reason payment is not made by the City within thirty (30) days of presentment, the City shall incur and pay interest on the outstanding balance at the rate of 1-1/2 percent per month pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 471.425, Supd. 4 (b). 3.2) Escrow - Within thirty (30) days following Commission approval of the plans and specifications and authorization to advertise for bids for the Facility pursuant to Section 2.1 of this Agreement, the City shall deposit in an escrow account with a holder or trustee approved by the Commission the full sum specified in Section 3.1 of this Agreement. The escrow account shall be established by a written agreement in a form acceptable to the Commission and providing for payment to the Commission of One Million Five Hundred Sixty-Eight Thousand Dollars ($1,568,000) upon transmittal by the Commission to the holder or trustee of a copy of the Certificate of Final Inspection in accordance with Section 3.1 of this Agreement. The City shall be entitled to all interest from the escrow account. ti SECTION 4. OWNERSHIP AND USE 4.1) OWNERSHIP OF THE FACILITY - The Commission shall be the sole owner of the Facility and shall be responsible for its operation, maintenance, repair, and reconstruction. The Commission shall operate and maintain the Facility in good, working order, and shall preserve and maintain that portion of the capacity of the Facility as described herein for use by the City as a trunk sewer. The Commission shall not be responsible for construction, operation, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of any connection to the Facility which is not constructed by the Commission as part of Commission Project 82-53. 4.2) City Use - The City shall be authorized to make use of the Facility as a trunk sewer for a minimum of 4.9 MGD peak capacity at such locations as may be authorized by the Commission (which authorization shall not be unreasonably withheld), consistent with the provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Sewer Plan, and the design plans for the Facility when areas tributary to the Facility are brought within the City's urban service area. The City shall apply for a connection permit for ail direct connections to the Facility and shall comply with the Commission's technical and engineering reouirements for such connection. All costs of such connections shall be paid by the City. 3 and hold harmless ( to indemnify 11 claims. less The City egress against a fs eeplo agents from and le to any claims y,3) 1 desnyees. or aq , attributable Commission,expenses,s s employees. attorney s fees. in the Fle to an the sxpsnses, including th nq r capacity losses a^dutilization of the trunk sewer regarding SECTION 5 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION Commission In acquiring The City shall assist the Cod other property City - ions. rights of entry Such assistance yes Dr a property needed for Facility• the neeessarY props sd for construction of the interests or permits nand Include: its now charge. of all sasaee' of the shallCommission withoutthe final route A. Conveyance to the Ccais by the City along owned or hereinafter acquiredeasements located Facility. of anY b Lhe Commission. without charge. CO1� which are determined necessary y S. Conveyance to theby the City • on Property ownedof the Facility. Commission for construction of public rights e. without charge' aeilitY• Approval and authority al for theu final route of the C. of within the City along fine of way to or other ;ss;on in acquiring easements lows entities propertyoparat;on with s from governmental ntai subdivisions. business �Commission for D. from li neeessarY by the interests it �t bra construed to cod construction individuals the Facility. determined Cooperation she of the Facility• acquisitions. require expenditures for such require expK pulates and agrees that construction therefore r�ac Pubii i►ic purpossiand that acquisition of property t the Facility law pursuant to Minnesota Statutes is for a pub is necessary and'authorized by Chapter 117. SECTION 6 LAND USE PLANNING AND CONTROL ci1's Mstropo;itan Devel- opment with the Coun to use its bast Growth and In ace licy plans. the City agrees gre tie the it 2000 6.1) irk end ePpi bie urbanization of areas agrees that it shaii opsent Framework the City efforts to prevent the premature Area. Specifically. 1� 1986: Metropolitan Urban Service before Aug M. and following on or plan or sue do and perform the adopted comprehensive with _ review en be necessary to comply City' (A) Submit e the planCouncii forents as may Amendments tosnts lY the through of this Section• s revise C 4 eomorehansive three) ,sled to the Councilct toilow. _ items A (one vanshall be submitted planning for acceptance to the Metropolitan Land acesPtanee p _� approval by the City's planning commission and after consideration but before final approval by the City's governing body. Provisions of the City's comprehensive plan which have been previously adopted by the City and accepted by the Council'shall not be subject to Council review and acceptance hereunder except as may be necessary to enforce the following three listed provisions: 1. a provision designating a year 2000 urban service area containing no more than 7736 acres of vacant developable land which includes platted lots and undeveloped portions of certain large industrial holdings, but does not include lakes, streams. or other waterbodies, wetlands, floodplains, areas with exposed bedrock, lands in Agricultural Preserves, public or privately owned park, open space and recreational areas, or facilities including golf courses, streets, highways and other lands used for public utilities. 2. a provision that the City will not exceed the Council's preliminary year 2000 sewer flow allocation of 4.93 MGD annual average flow or such final sewer flow allocation as may result from revisions to the Councils's Metropolitan Development Framework, whichever is greater; and 3• a provision applicable to any future subdivision designating rural service area (lands outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area) density standards of one dwelling unit per ten (70) acres with minimum lot sizes greater than 2.5 acres. subject to variances as may be permitted by law. The City agrees to adopt, after review and acceptance by the Council and prior to August 1, 1986 the above-described comprehensive plan amendments. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, no use of the Facility as a trunk sewer shall be permitted until the City has submitted and the Council has accepted the above—described plan amendments. (B) Following Council review and Commission approval, the City shall adopt a comprehensive sewer plan, consistent with the City's comprehensive plan as amended pursuant to this Agreement and containing within it: 1. a description of adopted on-site sewage disposal ordinance provisions consistent with applicable requirements set forth in the Council's Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan including Policies 42 through 47 and Procedure 10; and 2. a policy and program to reduce stormwater inflow consistent with the Commission's policies. (C) Transmit a description and analysis of the difference between the City's land use plan and its zoning ordinance provisions with respect to items A(1 through 3) above and a method approved and adopted by the Clty for reconciling the two which is acceptable to the Council, if different from one another with respect to land use types, densities, and urban service timing and staging. The City further • 5 agrees that by May I, 1987, it shall repeal or appropriately amend any official control or fiscal device that is in conflict with items A(l _ • through 3) above of its comprehensive plan. • 6.2) Modification - 14 is understood that the City may in the future, following compliance with the provisions of 6.1, amend its comprehensive plan - and/or comprehensive sewer plan including those provisions relating to its urban and rural service areas and sewer flow allocation, subject to Council approval of comprehensive plan amendments pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.856 and Sec. 473.175 and Commission approval of comprehensive sewer plan amendments pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.513. SECTION 7 SANCTIONS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT 7,1) Limitations on City's Right to Use - It is expressly agreed that in the event that the City commits a material breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement, the Council or Commission may, following formal consideration during which the City shall be given an opportunity to state its position, delay or limit the City's right to use the Facility for trunk sewer purposes or take such other action as may be appropriate, provided. however, the Council or Commission shall not disconnect any connection by the City to the Facility for which a connection permit has previously been granted pursuant to Section 4.2 of this Agreement. Prior to any such delay or limitation, the City shall be given a reasonable time which shall not be less than ninety (90) ' days after notice in writing of the claimed violation, to achieve compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Nothing herein shall be construed to remove or modify the liability of the City under Section 3 of this Agremment. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 7.1, the City shall have the right to initiate such action or actions that the City shall deem appropriate requesting a judicial determination of whether a material breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement has occurred and if so, whether the delay or limitation on the City's right to use the facility for trunk sewer purposes as imposed by the Council or Co mission or any other action taken by the Council or Commission is appropriate and equitable under the *circumstances. 7.2) Desion of Facility - Upon any breach of this Agreement by the City, the Council and Commission may determine to design the Facility without capacity for the City, renegotiate the level of cost sharing with the City, and/or take such other action as may be appropriate with respect to the design of the Facility. 7.3) fact Stipulations - To assist in the enforcement of Section 6 of this Agreement, the parties hereto agree and stipulate to the following findings of facts (01) The City has received from the Council an amendment to the Council's Water Resources Management Development Guide. The Guide is a metropolitan systems plan within the meaning of Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.856 and Sec. 473.175. A (02) An amendment to the City's present comprehensive plan is necessary under Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.856 to ensure conformity ( with metropolitan system plans. (03) Any amendment to the City's comprehensive plan that does not comply with the provisions of Section 6 of this Agreement constitutes a substantial departure from the Water Resources Management Development Guide within the meaning of Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.175. The parties hereto have entered this agreement in express reliance on the above- stated facts and the parties shall be *stopped from denying or contesting the truth of said facts. it Is expressly agreed that if the City fails to perform the tasks specified in Section 6 of this Agreement, the Council may obtain a court order under Minn.. Stat. Sec. 473.175 requiring the City to perform those actions specified in Section 6 of this Agreement. No action or Inaction by the City pursuant to any order, Judgment or decree of any court, governmental or administrative agency shall constitute a violation on the part of the City of • any provision of this Agreement, provided that if the City cannot meet its obligations pursuant to Section 3 because of such order, judgment, or decree, the Council and Commission shall have no obligation to provide trunk sewer service to the City under this Agreement. 7.4) City's Remedies - It is expressly agreed that in the event that the Council or Commission violates any of the provisions of this agreement. the City may, in addition to any other remedy at law, seek specific performance of this Agreement • 7 .S IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties hereto hive executed this Agreement on the day of . )986. • Approved as to form _ METROPOLITAN COUNCIL and adequacy By: Its: Chairperson. and By: Its: Executive Director METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION BY: Its: Chairperson, and • Hy: Its: Chief Administrator CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ( By: Its: Mayor. and By: Its: City Manager LOA208 . - - ......-•••••••. I' ,, ' -••• •••/----.4::, ;,...,4, ' -.- - ....-..... ,1-,.., -.4::>-•"••-• ,-"../. - ---c re -, -•" 7-....' "-"' ;.•1.../• ''..."-i'`.. • ' -...1-1- 1.'4.r, ';',• _.,''.. -/ ."-.......Y. - - '•. ii ti: ' r '•...^ • ,' •• • "''. i'••-`,......- •'' • ' ,......\ • :'i . ( .7. •••••:-i. = ',...--- . .... 2' ' `'I.•-_•-••• x • ...?'••••• < . - -.. ---,› "'•'-' .." r.....1 . 44,.... ....... . ..- / ...---C :• / 4 ,....,-.,...-rd...i' -.'.IS 11 i I , ' . ''''' -=',1 • ‘J--;;;•—•,...i..,'• ,.... : ... ,."-... •.2 ••••• ..'‘,.'••••• I -.. r ` •-•.'a- L r...- .1 i .,..., er.:4 t ' -...............: ' --- r/r : •tT:/,:".....-, 't ' "f/.. , ' Lu / .,: i •," •Ii :' =_.1 4.--,...I.-, -...;,....- ,:•! .-.....-••• ....,: s - '-.-- 1 i i -.: ' . •.0.4 . \: ‘..ru ir • :.: ! r , . • ,,..:4 -:............. _. - i--"'""--t-...7'. :,•••• - .7 .....1. -: :-.....-: : •-.1 0 -..c --.,--* • Tr",• , i,;-:.-40;::::..--4. • .....:-1 •- . 4 -J. I:'.*.-.14',...--`7,„„..---;:s"•--.- -..;.i., Ini..--•-• 4• ...........--.1-27-`••••..-••.:. .7.•••••••••;.......:4-",.....:1•,3-1.,...: " =...............---\r',r:-,':•'•..-'":---'--.--„'„-.„•r••„•,•,.•.•..".r...^-..-'•T.N.-.....!...'..','""s."_-,_,--,r"'-.-..•-•-- •2'.• ''.:.--.t.. .i-;-7 :-. T - ".;"\".t.l.•:. . ••"c".,.• l-" - i IE 1,"' I ..' •' ././-...Z. *0 . •"Cr'-,_,-:.r:r.-.:-.../-'....7`,....------'"'r......."-e•tf.r....-.-7..7'.t.r-•-.1 et:r'•r:.'.,'..:.rt....'I i/.r• .-->",.../......' ,r..'1 ••.:•' 1.4.__.....--..,..-‘.,-,I.,•'\,,..O.O...:. :""7,". (110) L . , r4 - ' ,-...._._,' r- -rr. .....'t••••...- Zrr./....7.: a"7 '• M (:) s L''''' , .• -- - . -1.. -- _-2 I.,a-•. ,... ---... i '4. \ •••, ..z. 2 LI ,71•-r..,. .'-:: :L; "--,''Z'1 ..--. 1-'1;:", rT... ' : . _ • = / i. .,, t :-..-r• i 101''''.7- Imla .__....,,, _,.., - Z ••• .i -•- ••:7-4:: N•... .i2fN, ,.(7'.:. - . .i, __ ,•,-.7."-..-.,-.4N*4-';:.-7.,; , - - , i <.: - imo '.>:"."..,........= ......,"•---- - -- - ,4.:041.441:w. -.-F::,...I--...r.--- .2---.--_--------7t--2,..-1--_- '. E .....t.-'`''`:•_-- ,..X, .... ,...-rs, -,.....,y,......... ,, ..!,..., "I....N.\ \_N.,. 4_.‘:....-.-- Z • el —— _,-- ? - — • ....--- 2"-•...„ •.1......'•i(•• 7) - - Z i : ,i......-N,s-, .-...-.-.....:•.g."'. •:, , .-.4- ,4 - -=-I ,.._ _.,....„,-. -.--...t.,..-- •:, . • • •• - 1:J - ,..,- . , -747:.,:i C. rif,.„— ..I ; -2 ,.. ( =4' t.%1 0• \t--,...;.t"-N,s.-/ t 111-• ,..-- ,. -..-- - -.-! , , ;,„.. .. . ,,.. - ---'71.7%. -- C" • .e _„:, _C,/,-,.. , . i _,-..... -, --i., 1..k, „ :9.-,:li '' „,_-..r.t 1 ' \'' r• .."- .--,1i 0 ....,.......----, •\ - t ...4%'› ... ..1•••••"7.''".........2 r':.€. !: : . ! i' = I ; , \ .\ _..e:-..r, .F4 ::?.;"~"•=7..4., , !..:7-.. t :,..--- .......„ 1.,. .;4-..„.,..4,.. ;F:i It.,,,' i , :•-4. ' :-..,.`.... ..,--:"77. / - ! - •. ..--., ,,-----------ss,A:-----, MEI .VI '.•"7 .... 4t.. ...1• ` I =1 "... ... .2''' ' • ... ••••••.'i; `.,-•...: ., ..::: .„: , .: i II.: !\--,...T.c, , ,..= -'"----. . U ` , , , ; •-, ....• *......3 ' e•.‘, • '! ..• < "-----"-----."--1;:, 7---"Li...---.-s%".1:\;-"L-.:::i _ : ; l' ...--11 :' - : LLJ ..3.. .----. - — ...., • 7,, ,,,,_,:..r.---• U) Zcs i , '1 I = ".. ---•"--`"4-... - 6? 1 .' ' t' e4 I 7 • — 1.1. = -,' - ....2 I -. _ .--•-,. ...-- 7 .........e- ''.1*N. ` ,--•--.. ---..- r",,,,...,‘„.,. - .,,,,,.i...„,, .---.'----• — :.•••••••-,1 I'.: -.. .7 I - : ...I.D.I.t. ....••••+...../ .1 : ‘*.... ... ‘4 '.11. ..4'1.••• . NM " • L. , ...../B•e= .. 8 •!: .:/ 11. - - ---- -c • .i ',......"; ,i3- 7 ..--.---•......-ca„„,„, ...; '1 - / ........4.•.7: r, • : • tr ,--' *,.441,1f... . .d.-"•-•-.:.------"- ---- . : >' ......... .. : /i ••• ' . ••4S .: •-• . ':-•,- Li j 2 ...., :: ' :' ,-....---:-‹ -•--..„____../ ; _ ,:: , -.>- ;-:,....'., -''').• -- "`":4". :;,.... - . ....... .- ...-. ,/ I: ---.- - ts I I: ".." ' _:-,'. . -..-- 1\,,, -'. ,:ix• __./1 , / • • I % 1" I j-", 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: February 24, 1986 SUBJECT: Unauthorized Motorized Vehilces Use of Parks and Trails As the City of Eden Prairie continues to grow, City staff have noticed an increasing number of problems on City streets, private property, City trails and within City parks relating to unauthorized motorized vehicles. These include: dirt bikes, 3 wheel all terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles. The majority of the complaints relate to neighborhood disturbances from snowmobiles, and are received from throughout the developed areas of the community. On a recent inspection, City staff observed snowmobile tracks within every neighborhood park and community park within the City; whereas, the only authorized snowmobile trail within a City park is through Staring Lake Park. The City has received complaints from both cross country skiers and pedestrians using the trails within Staring Lake Park indicating they have had to leave the trail, or be run down by snowmobiles or all terrain vehicles on several occasions. The Eden Prairie Snowdrifters Snowmobile Club has made a concerted effort over the years to inform residents of where snowmobile trails are and have strongly encouraged snowmobile users to observe City ordinances and stay on snowmobile trails. Public Safety officers and park users often find that many of the people that are not staying on trails are not Eden Prairie residents. Every weekend there is a migration from Bloomington, Edina, Minneapolis, and other metropolitan communities of people that simply know "snowmobiling is allowed in Eden Prairie". Many don't bother to find out information about the rules and regulations of operating a snowmobile within our community. It is a shame that a few (and many are Eden Prairie residents) will most likely eventually cause elimination of this recreation opportunity within our community. It has been suggested that Eden Prairie is no longer a village and perhaps it is time to consider restrictions on snowmobiles and off road vehicles similar to those adopted by more developed communities. City staff would urge the Council to consider several steps prior to restricting snowmobiling altogether in Eden Prairie. The Community Services staff would recommend that beginning in the winter of 1986-87 the City hire a part-time park ranger that would work generally on weekends to patrol those areas where complaints are received. The park ranger does not have the authority to arrest anyone, but would have constant radio contact with the Public Safety Department and would be able to explain the rules of operating a snowmobile within the City of Eden Prairie to individuals who are not on designated trails, etc. The park ranger is able to take license numbers of snowmobiles and file complaints on individuals purposely breaking the law. If the park ranger program does not adequately address the problem, staff would then recommend restricting all snowmobiling to designated trails only. These trails would be limited to the southwestern portion of the community. Staff would suggest an area south and west of a line from 169 north to County Road 1, westerly along County Road 1 to County Road 4, north along County Road 4 to Highway 5, and west along Highway 5 to Chanhassen. Anyone within the community wishing to snowmobile on the trails in that area would have to trailer snowmobiles to designated trail heads within that area. As this section of the community eventually becomes developed, snowmobiling within this area would ultimately be eliminated. If this second step did not eliminate problems with complaints regarding snowmobiles, staff would then have to recommend eliminating snowmobiling altogether within the community. Although complaints regarding snowmobiling are limited to the winter months, complaints regarding all terrain vehicles and dirt bikes are a year-round problem. The majority of these complaints relate to the use of these vehicles on pedestrian and bike trails and within parks. The City currently has an ordinance making it illegal to use any unlicensed motorized venicle on pedestrian or bicycle trials or on park property. In 1986, City staff intend to increase park ranger patrols in areas where these problems have occurred. The Public Safety Department indicates that the snowmobile complaints relate not only to a recreation concern, but to a public safety concern. Many of the complaints are from neighborhoods where young people are "racing down the street" on a snowmobile. As the City becomes more urbanized the odds increase that sooner or later someone will back a car out of a driveway into a snowmobile "racing down the street". The Public Safety Department indicates that it is nearly impossible to stop a snowmobiler from a squad car, and the police are very reluctant to get into a high speed chase with a snowmobiler because of a noise complaint. Lt. Clark of the Public Safety Department supports the idea of a part-time park ranger spending time educating snowmobilers within the community and also suggestd the Snowmobile Club pass out flyers with the snowmobile trail locations and snowmobile ordinance. Staff will recommend that the Snowmobile Club budget up to $1,500 for patrolling trails in their next DNR grant application, and would recommend the City retain appoximately $1,000 of the 1986 park ranger budget for winter patrol. City staff will be in attendance with representatives of the Snowmobile Club on Monday, March 3 to discuss this issue. BL:md J MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services^ DATE: February 25, 1986 SUBJECT: Riley Lake Park Safety Conditions At the February 18, 1986, meeting the Eden Prairie City Council directed staff to prepare a report regarding safety conditions at Riley Lake Park. The City of Eden Prairie has had concerns over the years regarding the safety of the people using Riley Lake Park. In 1982, the City Council authorized the expenditure of approximately $30,000 to realign Riley Lake Road within the park in order to eliminate the high speed traffic between the beach and the picnic area, and to eliminate the problem of cars backing boats across this road during the launching process. At the same time, the City developed a parking facility that limited trailered boats to 15 parking spaces with 20 additional parking spaces for cars without trailers. These changes dramatically improved the safety conditions within the park and on the lake; however, it also made the park much more attractive to participants and increased the demand for the facilities. In 1983, there was over a 25% increase in boat launches even with the 15 boat limit. On February 18, 1986, the City Council approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 8-86 designating a slow no wake zone along the frontage of Riley Lake Park. This ordinance will help reduce the potential for accidents between swimmers, skiers, and boats. A major concern the City has regarding safety at Riley Lake Park relates to the lack of parking facilities presently available at the park. On most warm weekend days, there are ten to fifteen cars parked on County Road I by people that are using the park. The City has posted no parking along Riley Lake Road and has posted no parking signs within 150' of the intersection of Riley Lake Roadnd--County Road 1. When the parking lot at the park is filled, the nearest parking area is along County Road 1, at least 150' from the intersection of Riley Lake Road; this is somewhat over a quarter of a mile walk to the park. In 1985, the City acquired the Robert Hendrickson property, approximately 2 acres immediately north of the existing park. In 1986, the City will provide a designated overflow parking area on the new park property that will accommodate 15-20 cars. This overflow parking area should eliminate the majority of the parking need on County Road 1, with the exception of the extremely warm weekends and especially the holidays such as the 4th of July and perhaps Memorial Day. (It may, of course, also simply encourage more use of the park and not reduce the parking problem on County Road 1.) The Public Safety Department indicates the major concern regarding parking on County Road 1 is insufficient shoulder for parking adjacent to the road. The cars that are parked along County Road 1 are directly adjacent to the asphalt; therefore, people are walking on the road. If cars are parked on both sides of the road and people are walking on both sides of the road, there is not a great deal of room for two cars that may be meeting at 50 miles per hour. Staff would recommend the Council request the County to post County Road 1 as emergency parking only easterly to Dell Road and westerly to Crestwood Terrace. This would increase the walking distance to the Riley Lake to over one-half mile and should discourage any users that are not able to either park in the park or in the overflow parking area. BL:md